On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are talking DSM. When the DSM had never called something a disease and > never had a consistent presentation. When there is a lot of literature > showing how that something is NOT a disease, why persist on what has always > been wrong in any which case?
So, what specific Q-entry do you have in mind (what entry??)? Would it be enough to file a bug report against that (what??) ontology, and blacklist making that link, or so? But what term are you referring to? Are is this ontology so crap that it disagrees in major parts with DSM and common knowledge? 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 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
