- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:42:12 -0400
- 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 UTC