- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:32:24 -0400
- 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