Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/Mesh Qualifier ID

< Wikidata:Property proposal

MESH Qualifier ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Withdrawn
Data typeMISSING
Example 1MISSING
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  Oppose Nobody said we need it, so I'm withdrawing hte proposal --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Mesh_Qualifier_ID&oldid=951035030"