Hi Pantelis,

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:35 PM, chung <chvng at mail.ntua.gr> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out to these ontologies. I observed that the CITO
> ontology does not follow the BibTex standards.

No, it defines a new, cleaner standard.

I have asked the main author about conversion tools, but none exist yet...

> For example, there is no
> datatype properties for author, title, editor, etc; so I would prefer
> BIBO (which looks like the Knouf ontology).

Huh? You did check the third-party libraries it use reusing, right?

> 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.

Knouf? What is that? URL?

One thing that CiTO does better than BIBO is to recognize the
difference between content and publication medium... an article can
happen on paper, as PDF, etc... BIBO mixes up those concepts.

Egon

-- 
Post-doc @ Uppsala University
Proteochemometrics / Bioclipse Group of Prof. Jarl Wikberg
Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers