Hoi,
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. It is damaging to persist on including it as a disease and
accepting the consequences that it has.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 May 2016 at 15:51, Egon Willighagen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
