Denny,
This is a really good question: "How bad / good does Wikidata as a whole
fit the role of an open vocabulary for content tagging?"
but I suspect that it needs some qualifiers on it.
For what domains?
For what purposes?
I think the answer will vary by context and by timestamp. (But I think
this is ultimately going to be the one of the killer use cases for the
whole system.)
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Krichel <krichel(a)openlib.org> wrote:
Andrew Smeall writes
We do use MeSH for those subjects, but this only
applies to about 40% of
our papers. In Engineering, for example, we've had more trouble finding
an
open taxonomy with the same level of depth as
MeSH.
Have you found one?
For most internal applications, we need 100%
coverage of all
subjects.
Meaning you want to have a scheme that provides at least
one class for any of the papers that you publish? Why?
The temptation to build a new vocabulary is
strong, because it's the
fastest way to get to something that is non-proprietary and universal. We
can merge existing open vocabularies like MeSH and PLOS to get most of
the
way there, but we then need to extend that with
concepts from our corpus.
I am not sure I follow this. Surely, if you don't have categories
for engineering, you can build your own scheme and publish it. I don't
see this as a reason for not using MESH when that is valid for the
paper under consideration.
I must be missing something.
--
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel
http://openlib.org/home/krichel
skype:thomaskrichel