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

Re: (Updated) Camera Ontology

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:52:48 -0700
Message-ID: <002901c304d8$1e064400$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Rinke Hoekstra" <rinke@lri.jur.uva.nl>
Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Rinke
Nothing wrong with Roger's model.
I think you're just distracted by Roger's choice of names, especially
"optics".

Perhaps this formulation will be clearer (omitting xmlns qualifiers)
    <Class  Camera />
    <Property  Part>  <subClassOf  ObjectProperty>  </Property>
    <Part  body />
    <Part  lens />

    <Camera  aaa>
        <body  bbb>
        <lens  ccc>
    </Camera>
============
Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rinke Hoekstra" <rinke@lri.jur.uva.nl>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: (Updated) Camera Ontology


>
> 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
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 07:54:36 GMT

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