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