> -----Original Message-----
> From: bae...@googlegroups.com
> Behalf Of Matthias Samwald
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: baetle
> Subject: Mapping between SIOC and EvoOnt, some other comments on EvoOnt
> I am looking at the latest version of the EvoOnt ontologies that can
> be found at . I think there is potential for a more extensive
> mapping to SIOC.
> bom:Comment could be a subclass of sioc:Post
> bom:Issue seems to me like a subclass of sioc:Post, rather than
I would rather say it could be a subclass of sioc:Thread because an Issue is
a discussion about a certain topic (defect). What do you think?
> bom:User is quite redundant with sioc:User. I think that rather than
> creating a new subclass, one could just add additional properties to
I accidentally redefined the imports. See below.
> Generally, I also suggest to add rdfs:labels (with a 'en' language
> tag) to all entities in EvoOnt, as many user interfaces depend on the
> existance of these labels. The ID part of URIs should not be used for
> human-readable labeling.
Sure. Will be in the next version.
> It also seems like the bug in the bug ontology still exists: bom:Issue
> is currently a subclass of two disjoint classes, which makes the
> ontology inconsistent.
The core of the problem is Protégé. As you might noticed, the ontologies are
generated using Protégé 4. At some point I must have accidentally set the
option "make siblings mutually disjoint" what caused Protégé to redefine all
the imported entities under the bom namespace. I'm currently "cleaning"
that out. The proper version validates without problems using pellet.
I will check the other ontologies and upload the latest version within the