Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Re: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata

To: Richard Cooper <rich@valutech.com>
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
From: John Bateman <bateman@uni-bremen.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:23:04 +0200
CC: sowa@bestweb.net, "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>, SUO <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, cg@cs.uah.edu
In-Reply-To: <785E88EDE495BD488EF00E488E6A4627022FC3@vtmail.valutech.com>
References: <785E88EDE495BD488EF00E488E6A4627022FC3@vtmail.valutech.com>
Reply-To: John Bateman <bateman@uni-bremen.de>
Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)


>
>
>WordNet, which are the closest to peer-reviewed
>general concepts we presently have available.  
>
Oops. I did not realise the situation was quite that bad. I obviously
missed the peer-review of the first 10.000 or 20.000 of these.... 
different list?

Is there *any* reason that folks are still talking about WordNet and
Ontology on the same list apart from the fact that the former is
free and the latter is fun?

:-)

John B.

References:
- SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
  - From: "Richard Cooper" <rich@valutech.com>

Prev by Date: SUO: Re: article on the pitfalls of metadata
Next by Date: SUO: Architecture of an intelligent ontology development algorithm
Prev by thread: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
Next by thread: RE: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread