On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This reminds me of discussions around the Basic Formal Ontology that
you cannot define something if it is not real...
It is damaging to persist on including it as a disease
and
accepting the consequences that it has.
Yes, agreed. However, DSM switches opinion about what is a disease
too. That would make Wikidata a temporal knowledge base.
It is always damaging if you make judgments based on labels given to
something (as you know from current Western politics...) But you
cannot wave away the fact that people talk about things and that
things have an impact on society. Is RSI a real thing? Is 'chronic
fatigue' a disease or not?
What matters more? That we record who calls it a disease (with
provenance) or whether scientists reached consensus?
Should we allow for things that are diametrical the
opposite of each other.
To return to your that question, this is currently the situation in
many areas of Wikidata. This is not something Wikidata can always
solve, and certainly not if you stick to the idea that it does not
intend to be an authority, but take authority from their data
sources... another example where "diametrical the opposite of each
other" occur currently is chemical structures, where something cannot
be both charged and uncharged and specific in chemical formula... yet,
that happens.
But I guess you have a specific thing in mind, which is not included
in the discussion so far... understanding the problem at hand may help
me understand the problem and what could be a good solution... very
often this is formalizing the uncertainty... (where the uncertainty
here seems to be human opinion (of DSM versus some ontology
development team...)
Egon
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 May 2016 at 15:51, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
--
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