Triple
T306675
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | RFC 9112 |
E6318
|
entity |
| Predicate | obsoletes |
P101
|
FINISHED |
| Object | RFC 7230 |
E6318
|
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 7230 | Statement: [RFC 9112, obsoletes, RFC 7230]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: RFC 7230 Context triple: [RFC 9112, obsoletes, RFC 7230]
-
A.
RFC 6241
RFC 6241 is the IETF standard that specifies the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) for managing and configuring network devices.
-
B.
RFC 7950
RFC 7950 is the IETF specification that standardizes the YANG 1.1 data modeling language used for modeling configuration and state data in network management protocols.
-
C.
RFC 9112
chosen
RFC 9112 is the IETF specification that standardizes the semantics and behavior of HTTP/1.1.
-
D.
RFC 8040
RFC 8040 is an IETF standard that defines the RESTCONF protocol, a RESTful interface for accessing and managing data defined with YANG in network configuration and management systems.
-
E.
RFC 6557
RFC 6557 is an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) document that defines procedures and guidelines for the maintenance and distribution of the IANA time zone database.
- 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_69a2e79230508190b912ecb555aae17e |
completed | Feb. 28, 2026, 1:03 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69a2ea313be88190b4441f3ea41a99e2 |
completed | Feb. 28, 2026, 1:14 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69a3b472eda88190b573432ba2295162 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 3:37 a.m. |
Created at: Feb. 28, 2026, 1:06 p.m.