(Updated) Camera Ontology

Hi Folks,

1. I uncovered some typos in the Camera Ontology and fixed them.  Plus,
I added a viewFinder property to the Camera class.  The range for
viewFinder is Viewer.  I enumerated the values for Viewer as:

     #ThroughTheLens
     #WindowOnTopOfCamera

It is my understanding that the thing which characterizes a SLR is that
the view finder is through the lens. (Correct?)  So, in the SLR class I
restricted the viewFinder property to hasValue=#ThroughTheLens.  I'm
eager to see what you think about this addition (and if I did it
correctly).  Here's the URL to the updated graphical image of the Camera
Ontology:

    http://www.xfront.com/camera/sld001.htm

Here's the URL to the updated Camera Ontology:

    http://www.xfront.com/camera/camera.owl

2. Richard McCullough sent me a fascinating idea yesterday.  The idea is
to clearly identify that optics and carriage are "part" properties. 
Thus, the idea is to create a Part class that is a subclass of
owl:ObjectProperty, i.e., 

    <owl:Class rdf:ID="Part">
         <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&owl;#ObjectProperty"/>
    </owl:Class>

Now, the optics property is defined using this new property class:

    <camera:Part rdf:ID="optics">
        <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Camera"/>
        <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Lens"/>
    </camera:Part>

Ditto for the carriage property.

I thing that this is a really cool idea!  It nicely shows that "optics
is a camera part".  

It had never occurred to me to subclass owl:ObjectProperty like this. 
What do you think of this idea?  What disadvantages are there to
subclassing ObjectProperty like this?  I believe that a disadvantage is
that SymmetricProperty and FunctionalProperty would not be useable with
this subclass, correct? 

[Richard, I hope that I have accurately portrayed your idea.]

/Roger

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 11:54:57 UTC