Hoi,

The problem is that when there is no agreement on its existence, when it is highly stigmatic, when it determines the life of people because of an opinion. It is damaging to persist on including it as a disease and accepting the consequences that it has.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 14 May 2016 at 15:51, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> When an external ontology says that something is a disease and the DSM-5
> says it is not. There is a huge problem.

How is DSM-5 not an ontology itself? Why is this a huge problem? Isn't
this just two sources that contradict each other? Moreover, I am even
tempted to say it's not even a formal contradiction; it's just
different definitions of something which is hard to define...

More interestingly would be: should Wikidata have separate items for both?

Egon

--
E.L. Willighagen
Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286
ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/EgonWillighagen

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata