Hi Egon,
  Thanks for pointing out to these ontologies. I observed that the CITO
ontology does not follow the BibTex standards. For example, there is no
datatype properties for author, title, editor, etc; so I would prefer
BIBO (which looks like the Knouf ontology). Are there any advantages of
choosing BIBO over Knouf? I have made a draft service based on the knouf
ontology which I'll deploy today and we will have the opportunity to
test it.


Best Regards,
Pantelis



On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 12:39 +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:07 PM, chung <chvng at mail.ntua.gr> wrote:
> >  There is a formal OWL definition of bibliographic entries following the
> > BibTeX specification. This is available at
> > http://zeitkunst.org/bibtex/0.1/ . I think we could use this in OpenTox
> > if we need to assign such a reference to a model, dataset with
> > predictions or other resource.
> 
> I like to point out two alternatives:
> 
> BIBO: http://bibotools.googlecode.com/svn/bibo-ontology/tags/1.3/bibo.xml.owl
> CITO: http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2009/citobase/cito-20100528-1.6/cito-content/owldoc/
> 
> The latter has my personal preference.
> 
> Egon
>