Improving enriching STO with dbpedia data

[igrangel]

The improvement of rdfs:label and rdfs:comment is good for us
On top of that we should check what is convenient to map to the dbpedia ontology
Question, the abstract property

1. Should we include it or should we map it with a better name?

[mmaltsev]

Unfortunately, I don't have any good suggestions about this issue. The property seem to carry a big ammount of information that can be useful. On the other hand, the difference between it and such properties as rdfs:comment and skos:definition is not always quite clear for me.

[igrangel]

rdfs:comment described here is used to provide a human-readable description of a resource.
skos:definition described here is used to provide a complete explanation of the intended meaning of a concept.
Basically, they are similar but I propose to keep it simple, i.e., use or improve the rdfs:comment.
The question here is if it would be better to improve the existing rdfs:comment with the abstract information or to create a version of the abstract property in the STO ontology to include the information that comes with the abstract.

[mmaltsev]

Since I can't think of any good arguments for or against the alternatives, I would rather prefer not to create an additional property in STO if there is no necessity.

[igrangel]

Then we just add the abstract to our Knowledge Base (KB) as a DBPedia property.
Which other property from DBPedia can be of importance for enriching our KB?