Triple
T23301029
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Schorsch Meier GmbH v Hennin |
E590301
|
entity |
| Predicate | hasJudgeOpinionBy |
P19462
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Lord Denning MR |
—
|
NE NERFINISHED |
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: Lord Denning MR | Statement: [Schorsch Meier GmbH v Hennin, hasJudgeOpinionBy, Lord Denning MR]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: hasJudgeOpinionBy Context triple: [Schorsch Meier GmbH v Hennin, hasJudgeOpinionBy, Lord Denning MR]
-
A.
hasJudge
chosen
Indicates that a legal case, proceeding, or decision is presided over or decided by a particular judge.
-
B.
hasMajorityOpinionBy
Indicates that a majority of the relevant group or decision-making body holds or supports the opinion expressed by the referenced entity.
-
C.
hasJudges
Indicates that one entity serves as a judge or panel of judges for another entity, such as an event, competition, or legal case.
-
D.
hasDissentingOpinions
Indicates that one or more entities hold opinions that disagree with or oppose a prevailing, majority, or authoritative view in a given context.
-
E.
majorityOpinionJoinedBy
Indicates that an entity (such as a judge or justice) formally joins and agrees with the court’s majority opinion in a decision.
- F. None of above.
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_69e25d1c0ecc8190a355aa229f06d0e0 |
completed | April 17, 2026, 4:17 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f196d37fd08190ad2d199c54324c02 |
completed | April 29, 2026, 5:27 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69effcf325f88190b320268c3c551abb |
completed | April 28, 2026, 12:18 a.m. |
Created at: April 17, 2026, 5:04 p.m.