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 09:42:12 -0400
Message-ID: <3E9EAF34.F7DDF394@mitre.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>, "Jacobs,David B." <djacobs@mitre.org>, "Sabbouh,Marwan" <ms@mitre.org>

"Richard H. McCullough" wrote:
> 
> 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>

The reason for the "optics oddity" is that I wanted Lens to be a class,
not a property.  Why?  Well, because I wanted to be able to talk about a
Lens instance, e.g.,

<Lens rdf:ID="Hasselblad_500V">
    <f-stop>...</f-stop>
    <focal-length>...</focal-length>
</Lens>

I agree that "optics" is a poor choice.  Lens would be great, but then
it wouldn't allow the above.  Suggestions?  /Roger
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 09:43:41 GMT

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