Denny, This is a really good question: "How bad / good does Wikidata as a whole fit the role of an open vocabulary for content tagging?" but I suspect that it needs some qualifiers on it.
For what domains? For what purposes? I think the answer will vary by context and by timestamp. (But I think this is ultimately going to be the one of the killer use cases for the whole system.) On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Krichel <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew Smeall writes > > > We do use MeSH for those subjects, but this only applies to about 40% of > > our papers. In Engineering, for example, we've had more trouble finding > an > > open taxonomy with the same level of depth as MeSH. > > Have you found one? > > > For most internal applications, we need 100% coverage of all > > subjects. > > Meaning you want to have a scheme that provides at least > one class for any of the papers that you publish? Why? > > > The temptation to build a new vocabulary is strong, because it's the > > fastest way to get to something that is non-proprietary and universal. We > > can merge existing open vocabularies like MeSH and PLOS to get most of > the > > way there, but we then need to extend that with concepts from our corpus. > > I am not sure I follow this. Surely, if you don't have categories > for engineering, you can build your own scheme and publish it. I don't > see this as a reason for not using MESH when that is valid for the > paper under consideration. > > I must be missing something. > > -- > > Cheers, > > Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel > skype:thomaskrichel >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
