Wikidata:Property proposal/Mesh Qualifier ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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   Withdrawn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)

Discussion[edit]

Anandhisuresh (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)anandhisuresh Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Shani Evenstein
Csisc
linuxo
Arash
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine @Eihel, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Thadguidry, Andrawaag, Andrew Su, Ambrosia10:

Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
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)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nobody said we need it, so I'm withdrawing hte proposal --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)