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

["Richard Cooper" <rich@valutech.com>]

John F. Sowa wrote
> Rich,
> 
> I stated more qualifications to that point:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> WordNet does have a top level, which nobody uses, and everybody
> who has an ontology replaces with their own pet top level.
> 
> I didn't say that a top level is bad, but that it should not
> be imposed from the top down.  Instead, it should be derived
> from the bottom up (or better, by an iterative method that
> is subject to many kinds of tests against reality and
> applications to reality).
> 
> John Sowa

John if I misquoted you, I apologize.  But I was impressed
by the fact that you recommended WordNet.  I have the database
files for WordNet 1.7.1 and WordNet 2.0, but the ontology
isn't made explicit there.  Do you know of a reference URL
that describes it more explicitly?

Thanks,
Rich