On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > -- 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
