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