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 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
