Re: (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

 Is the viewFinder a functional property? if not, the SLR class "being restricted the viewFinder property to hasValue=#ThroughTheLens" is not enough.
 

> 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? 

It's a very nice idea. But the meaning of "part" has not yet been encoded unless it is standardized.


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

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 22:04:18 UTC