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

Re: (Updated) Camera Ontology

From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:32:24 -0400
Message-ID: <3E9EACE8.3C37346B@mitre.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>

Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
> 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?

Hi Rinke.  You make an excellent point.  I think that it should be: Lens
is a part of a Camera, and Body is a part of a Camera.  How would that
be expressed?  /Roger
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 09:33:50 UTC

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