W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2003

Re: (Updated) Camera Ontology

From: Rinke Hoekstra <rinke@lri.jur.uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:05:46 +0200
Message-ID: <000901c304b8$26d6f0e0$6401a8c0@Rhino>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>


> I thing that this is a really cool idea!  It nicely shows that "optics
> is a camera part".

No, what it says is that optics is a part relation between a camera and its
lens. Abstracting from this, it simply states that a lens is a part of a
However, even if it did say that, the statement that "optics is a camera
part" is false in my world. Whereas camera is a physical entity (an object,
or artifact), "optics" definately is not. What kind of part relation are we
talking about here?


    Rinke Hoekstra

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 10-4-2003
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 04:05:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:45 UTC