Wikidata:Property proposal/Mesh Qualifier ID
MESH Qualifier ID[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
| Description | MISSING |
|---|---|
| Data type | MISSING |
| Example 1 | MISSING |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
Motivation[edit]
MESH ID is being split into 3: Descriptor, Concept and Term (see earlier in this page). Do we need yet another property for Qualifier? Source: https://hhs.github.io/meshrdf/qualifiers. This query shows there are only 84.
There are some good examples:
- Q000097 blood
- Q000000981 diagnostic imaging
- Q000009 adverse effects
- Q000401 mortality
But other examples are "compound terms" that perhaps don't belong to WD, eg
- administration & dosage
- analogs & derivatives
- anatomy & histology
- antagonists & inhibitors
Maybe we don't need it..
If people say we need it, I'll fill the template properly Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine
@Eihel, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Thadguidry, Andrawaag, Andrew Su, Ambrosia10:
Comment Oh no, they have a Q prefix and numerical value? So confusing! But given the small number there I would think maybe there's another way to handle this - exact match to the URI if these come with URI's? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think I agree that we don't need them: the compound terms are not suitable for WD, and the rest are a small number.
- @ArthurPSmith: any sufficiently advanced system may look confusing to people who don't use it :-) I'm sure some non-physicists find physics classifications confusing. The thing is that NLM has devised a sophisticated system for indexing and searching medical articles, and Qualifiers are a part of that. They have detailed usage notes https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/topsubscope.html, and have recorded allowed and non-allowed combinations https://hhs.github.io/meshrdf/sample-queries#anch_43. So what does Project Medicine say?
- After messing with many millions of publications (eg CrossRef has 100M, growing 0.5M per month), I can say that NLM and PubMed is one of the best organized, has the strongest data guidelines, and consequently best data quality. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think I agree that we don't need them: the compound terms are not suitable for WD, and the rest are a small number.
Oppose Nobody said we need it, so I'm withdrawing hte proposal --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)