- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:12:22 -0700
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>, "Jacobs,David B." <djacobs@mitre.org>, "Sabbouh,Marwan" <ms@mitre.org>
Roger Notice that I used lower case for the "lens" Property/Part. Your upper case "Lens" can be the Class that is the range of the "lens" Property/Part. Then, in my (your) example, "ccc" ("Hasselblad_500V") is the value of the Property/Part "lens", and "ccc" ("Hasselblad_500V") is an instance of the Class "Lens". ============ Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@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> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:42 AM Subject: Re: (Updated) Camera Ontology > > "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 10:12:34 UTC