Re: Beagle ontology draft

On 16/01/2008, Lukas Lipka <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yeah, we thought about using Xesam at first. It is nice and everything,
> but very exhausting to use and it's missing some of the nice features
> that Beagle has - like note types, etc.
>
> Our xesam-adaptor does a pretty good job at handling Xesam and now that
> property names will be somewhat consistent adding a simple-tweakable XML
> file mapping our ontology to Xesam's should be quite easy.
>
> And if you are missing the nice features from Xesam ontology, nothing is
> stopping you to add their equivalents into our ontology.

It should be noted that the Xesam ontology is not frozen yet, and that
Note objects are going to be in the final ontology.

A quick hack tells me that the Beagle onto proposal has ~166 fields,
while Xesam has ~210. It is not exactly a huge difference.

Cheers,
Mikkel