Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://w3id.org/linkflows/reviews/hasCommentText> ?o ?g. }
- comment hasCommentText "The object class should point to the link of the class: http://purl.org/np/RAiUYY1dbEDbcsscapEmbMMHsgJmjEJ1yUoNsxZIH1r90#transcription-of-stmn2, instead of the link to the nanopublication in which this class is published." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the label in itself represents the meaning of the original article, but the qualifier wasn't the suitable one to express it. I have modified the qualifier from "generally" to "mostly" to specify that the original article claims that Shh is an essential regulator." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The original quote from the article has been replaced with a more specific one" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the feedback" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks, I updated the object slot to http://purl.org/np/RAiUYY1dbEDbcsscapEmbMMHsgJmjEJ1yUoNsxZIH1r90#transcription-of-stmn2" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks! m." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Right - i see that adherence to the FAIR principles is a more specific form of adherence. the ontologist in me wants to make this a subclass :)" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Indeed, I misunderstood the quote part. The quote now comes from (the abstract of) the original article" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree that this can be confusing. In response to a formalization review comment (3), I added a new class "Digital humanities research"which is a subclass of the resource "research" in wikidata and related to the resource "digital humanities" in wikidata." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Changed to the suggested doi. Thank you" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Provenance changed to show generated by a formalization activity." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Suggestion adopted." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Added IRX3 and IRX5 as related classes" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no review needed, but was completed anyway" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no action needed" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Couldnt find the appropriate subclass for "regulatory element"" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "An exact quote from the article was added" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "an exact quote from the article was added" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no action needed" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no action needed" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the positive review on the class definition." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for the positive review on the class definition." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "We agree with this review comment and have addressed it by defining a new class license-with-non-commercial-clause which is a subclass of software license (Q79719) and is related to Q65071627 and have used this new class as the subject of our updated formalisation." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your review! While we agree that when it comes to legal issues a more concrete language should be used, our formalisation is of a statement which expresses an opinion rather than a legal fact. Licenses with a non-commercial clause do not inhibit reuse of biodiversity data because of legal reasons but as a consequence of the difficulty to reuse data." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I updated the class description to use skos:related to for glycocalyx" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no modification requested" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "should be fixed hopefully. not sure as it's not clear how the problem appeared in the first place." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I don't think the original publication shows a causal relationship. It seems to me only a correlation is proven." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "no modification requested" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general structure of the formalization is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general class definition is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "addressed in previous comment" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your valuable suggestion." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for the suggestion." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for the suggestion which was implemented." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "We discussed that and agree to change the context (and the classes) so that "universal context" fits best." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Chris Evelo added as author as agreed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Changed according to suggestion." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "No excess or deficiency involved here, that is just a statement that Vitamin A targets and CAKUT related proteins overlap (are sometimes the same)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "We discussed that and agreed to "universal context" together with a change of subject and object classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "added publication" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "made changes" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "my pleasure!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "class updated" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Ignored according to Cristina's recommendation" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Yes! I am quite clever." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Provenance updated" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your suggestion, which was addressed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your suggestion, which was addressed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "In another review comment (http://purl.org/np/RALWxVELKuqrkcO9ud2eXr0E2-ot5bl-0NpOIQi1ktrgI) it is specified that this naming is ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "In another review comment (http://purl.org/np/RALWxVELKuqrkcO9ud2eXr0E2-ot5bl-0NpOIQi1ktrgI) it is specified that this naming is ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your suggestion, which was addressed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I adressed the good point made by the reviewer following his suggestion: mint a new class 'dysfunction of ERAD pathway' and then use this class in object position." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I changed the context with the more specific class 'genetic disorder' that is stated in the assertion but was not included in the first version, which is 'autosomal recessive disorder' thus declaring the congenital characteristic of this disorder." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree and I changed the provenance using the 'Generated by a formalization activity' template following reviewer's suggestion." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "We thank the reviewer for this comment and have changed the formalization accordingly." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Yes, it would be useful to specify how the sources should be referred to." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Yes, and maybe we should clarify the procedure for doing this systematically." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Yes, and we have also added the full stop at the end." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe using the "mostly" qualifier would have been better" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance looks really good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe changing the "_" into a "-" for newly generated classes" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "There is no link to the original publication" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The content is very good" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part of this SPI looks good. The content of the paper matches the content of the nanopublication." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for adding the class as automatic discovery is missing in Wikidata." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I learned a lot from this formalization. In particular, about nesting object classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class 'cancer cell engaged in extracellular matrix' is defined as an intersection between 'extracellular matrix' and 'cancer cell'. But these two things are different, and cannot be formally intersected. instead, I might suggest that the subject type is a cancer cell that has a relation of 'located in' to an 'extracellular matrix'" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "looks good!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This class definition looks OK." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This class definition looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "It would be good to add skos:relatedMatch references to identifiers for the genes IRX3 and IRX5." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This formalisation paper captures excellently one of the main claims made in the original article. I have a small comment regarding the style of the formalisation paper itself. There is no quote from the original paper and instead the paraphrased claim was inserted (sub:quote triple in the Provenance section)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree with the way the class was defined and commend the author for linking it to a parent Wikidata class (gene expression). The only thing I would change is the uppercase 'and' within the class identifier between the two gene names." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A provenance source is provided but it does not have the correct link. Instead of the article URL, the author should put the DOI in the form https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1502214. There is also a superfluous comma before the provenance URL." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim does not seem to be atomic, as it mentions two genes, IRX3 and IRX5. I think it should be broken into two different claims, one for each of these genes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the scientific claim (if we assume the claim is rephrased in an atomic way) seems correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is a specific type of provenance, namely, it is the result of a "formalization activity". This should be used in the provenance field with all the corresponding details pertaining to this "formalization activity"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A small thing: to start the sentence containing the scientific claim with an uppercase letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is a specific type of provenance, namely, it is the result of a "formalization activity". This should be used in the provenance field with all the corresponding details pertaining to this "formalization activity". This is the place where the DOI of the article from which the quoted scientific claim was extracted should be specified." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the exact quote from the article of the scientific claim is "Our data show that pharmacogenomics-guided clopidogrel treatment strategy may represent a cost-effective choice compared with non-pharmacogenomics-guided strategy for patients undergoing PCI." and not the actual scientific claim stated there, which is a reformulation of this phrase from the article." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is indeed a special type of activity named "FormalizationActivity". So, this is a good chouce for the provenance field." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization is very good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The original quote from the article that contains the scientific claim that is formalized should be written here, instead of the sentence with the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance, which is a "FormalizationActivity" should also include the actual quote from the article from which the scientific claim was derived. As such, the "sub:quote prov:value <quote_from_article_from_which_the_scientific_claim_was_derived>" and "prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3130>" should be added." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe the use of a causal relation like "contributes to" can also be used here." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Something small: starting the sentence containing the scientific claim of the super-pattern with a capital letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The correct provenance here is a "FormalizationActivity", as the formalization was derived after such a specific activity. There the original article (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13535) and the exact quote from the article that contained the scientific claim, together with the ORCID of the creator(s) should be specified." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe the scientific claim should be rephrased a bit to reflect the growth effect more, instead of just using "mechanically drives"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization seems to reflect well the content of the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the formalization is the result of a "FormalizationAcitvity", which is correctly chosen and filled in." assertion.