EvoOnt bom and baetle mappings ?
Olivier Berger
I'm not completely sure... is there some mappings clearly defined
between BOM and Baetle ontologies ?
Many thanks in advance.
Btw, I'm new here and not a SW expert, so I probably missed obvious
things ;)
--
Olivier BERGER <olivier...@it-sudparis.eu>
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
Henry Story
This is a place to discuss it in public.
Though I have been very busy myself with http://esw.w3.org/topic/foaf+ssl
Henry
Olivier Berger
> Currently, you should think of EvoOnt as the Baetle ontology.
OK, but I was wondering if someone had defined some OWL mappings between
both...
In any case we're focusing on EvoOnt's BOM ATM for some project we've
started to work on (some details at
https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Helios_wp3/Web/ )
Basically, we're aiming at doing synchronisation between bugtrackers in
the opensource ecosystem, so interoperability will be a key constraint,
and we're looking at RDF/onntologies as a way to go.
Expect more news from us in the future ;)
> This is a place to discuss it in public.
>
Great.
> Though I have been very busy myself with http://esw.w3.org/topic/foaf+ssl
>
Have noticed on your blog, yes... enough to get busy I suppose ;)
Regards,
Henry Story
On 26 Jan 2009, at 15:22, Olivier Berger wrote:
>
> Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 14:40 +0100, Henry Story a écrit :
>> Currently, you should think of EvoOnt as the Baetle ontology.
>
> OK, but I was wondering if someone had defined some OWL mappings
> between
> both...
mapping if it is going to be the same.
I need to use EvoOnt on some projects myself to see if the ontology
suits those projects too.
> In any case we're focusing on EvoOnt's BOM ATM for some project we've
> started to work on (some details at
> https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Helios_wp3/Web/ )
> Basically, we're aiming at doing synchronisation between bugtrackers
> in
> the opensource ecosystem, so interoperability will be a key
> constraint,
> and we're looking at RDF/onntologies as a way to go.
find really interesting.
Are you in France, cause then we should meet up.
> Expect more news from us in the future ;)
but there is growing interest in this space in Sun at least, so we
should try to make sure we can pool our resources.
In the google code repository I have a few mappings to what I took was
needed for baetle for the jira repository. This should be updated with
the latest EvoOnt ontology. I may be doing more work in this space
quite soon.
I am in Fontainebleaus btw, so we're pretty close. We should find some
time to meet up.
Henry
Olivier Berger
Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 18:43 +0100, Henry Story a écrit :
>
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 15:22, Olivier Berger wrote:
>
> >
> > Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 14:40 +0100, Henry Story a écrit :
> >> Currently, you should think of EvoOnt as the Baetle ontology.
> >
> > OK, but I was wondering if someone had defined some OWL mappings
> > between
> > both...
>
> Well since EvoOnt has had a lot more work, it would be silly to do a
> mapping if it is going to be the same.
Allright. I just imagined that maybe people had started to implement
things over baetle and would need some way to "convert"/navigate their
way to BOM...
> I need to use EvoOnt on some projects myself to see if the ontology
> suits those projects too.
>
> > In any case we're focusing on EvoOnt's BOM ATM for some project we've
> > started to work on (some details at
> > https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Helios_wp3/Web/ )
>
> A very interesting. We should add that to our wiki here.
>
Feel free to do so. We're aiming for open source results, and will try
to work as much in the open as possible, in any case ;)
> > Basically, we're aiming at doing synchronisation between bugtrackers
> > in
> > the opensource ecosystem, so interoperability will be a key
> > constraint,
> > and we're looking at RDF/onntologies as a way to go.
>
> Ok, are you doing this in a Linked Data fashion?
You mean Linked Data as described at http://linkeddata.org/ I suppose...
Well probably yes if possible... I'm not fully familiar with all SW
techniques, and we're just started, so we'll see what happens.
> This is what I would
> find really interesting.
> Are you in France, cause then we should meet up.
Yes indeed... follow-up-to : private discussion.
>
> > Expect more news from us in the future ;)
>
> Yes, please do keep in contact here. The mailing list is a bit quiet,
> but there is growing interest in this space in Sun at least, so we
> should try to make sure we can pool our resources.
Cool.
>
> In the google code repository I have a few mappings to what I took was
> needed for baetle for the jira repository. This should be updated with
> the latest EvoOnt ontology. I may be doing more work in this space
> quite soon.
I think we may have useful state of the art to contribute in this
respect at some point.
Best regards,
>
> Henry
Olivier Berger
Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 15:22 +0100, Olivier Berger a écrit :
> Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 14:40 +0100, Henry Story a écrit :
> > Currently, you should think of EvoOnt as the Baetle ontology.
>
> OK, but I was wondering if someone had defined some OWL mappings between
> both...
>
I just realized I had probably asked my question on a false assumption,
which is baetle would have been specified as a schema/owl whatever
"machine parsable".
Of course, EvoOnt is much more concrete ontology to make
implementations, so there's not much asking for precise mapping then ;)
Sorry.
I suppose it's then my turn to make the wiki contents more explicit to
avoid newcomers to make similar mistakes ;)