RE: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
Dear Rich,
But where we are heading with the IFF approach is to have multiple upper
ontologies.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cooper [mailto:rich@valutech.com]
> Sent: 25 August 2003 21:55
> To: John Bateman
> Cc: sowa@bestweb.net; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; SUO; cg@cs.uah.edu
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
>
>
>
>
> > >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.
>
> Yes, in fact John Sowa recently opined that WordNet, for all
> its lack of axioms, appears to be the only ontology that
> has an empty top level. All the others force a specific
> top level before providing multiple interpretations at
> lower levels. As I remember John's comment (it would be
> useful if someone can find it in the archives), he felt the
> imposition of a specific top level set is a widely practiced
> mistake that ontologists make.
>
> All that led to the discussion about bottom-up algorithms
> to build the higher levels below the empty top, and above
> the terminal concepts.
>
> Which led me to state the above opinion that
> > >WordNet .. the closest to peer-reviewed
> > >general concepts we presently have available.
>
> I didn't say other ontologies weren't peer reviewed, I just
> said that WordNet meets the criterion of an empty top level,
> and provides a set of real world concepts to start with.
>
> Clearer?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
>