Triple
T10158983
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | RFC 2811 |
E233839
|
entity |
| Predicate | relatedTo |
P37
|
FINISHED |
| Object | RFC 2810 |
E233838
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (2 steps)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
NER
Named-entity recognition
gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: RFC 2810 | Statement: [RFC 2811, relatedTo, RFC 2810]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: RFC 2810 Context triple: [RFC 2811, relatedTo, RFC 2810]
-
A.
RFC 2810
chosen
RFC 2810 is an Internet standards document that specifies the architecture and core concepts of the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) protocol.
-
B.
RFC 3410
RFC 3410 is an informational RFC that provides an overview, framework, and goals for the Simple Network Management Protocol version 3 (SNMPv3) and its related specifications.
-
C.
RFC 2910
RFC 2910 is an IETF specification that defines the Internet Printing Protocol/1.1 model and encoding for network printing.
-
D.
RFC 2481
RFC 2481 is an early experimental specification that introduced Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for IP and TCP to signal network congestion without packet loss.
-
E.
RFC 2830
RFC 2830 is an Internet standard that originally specified how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) connections.
- F. None of above.
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Provenance (3 batches)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69ca848e80748190b91d1e04d35512c7 |
completed | March 30, 2026, 2:11 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69cdec56d944819081bc6ea36c905ba2 |
completed | April 2, 2026, 4:11 a.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69d300b7b3108190a8e7581193c322be |
completed | April 6, 2026, 12:39 a.m. |
Created at: March 30, 2026, 9:09 p.m.