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>

Roger,

> 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
camera.
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?

Regards,

    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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:58 GMT