Re: (Updated) Camera Ontology

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