02-001. [Image] would fit better than [ComputerData] if the
definition of [Image] was expanded slightly. It might also be
good if a new subclass called [BinaryObject] was inserted between
[ComputerData] and [Image]. (01)
I also noticed there is [Graph], which is a subclass of Icon. In
CCT, graph and image are semantically very similar. They
represent specific types of binary objects. In Sumo, it looks
like [Graph] may fit the definition of graph in CCT, but there is
no link between [Graph] and [Image] (or [ComputerData]). (02)
02-002. Should be [SymbolicString] or a new instance of
[SymbolicString]. Example might be "Visio Drawing" or "WAV
File". (03)
Also, why is [SymbolicString] a subclass of
[ContentBearingObject]? I would have thought [SymbolicString]
would be closely related to [Text] in the taxonomy of terms. (04)
02-003/004/005. Each of these components provide some additional
information about [ComputerData] but are not necessarily
subclasses or instances of [ComputerData]. Could these
components be subrelations of [represents]? (05)
02-006. Why is [UniformResourceIdentifier] a subclass of
[ContentBearingObject] and not a subrelation of
[uniqueIdentifier]? URIs are clearly unique identifiers pointing
to a specific location on the internet. (06)
02-007. I think [ComputerFile] would map better than [names]. (07)
Garret.Minakawa.vcf
Description: Card for Garret Minakawa
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:cctont-imp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/cctont-imp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/CCT-Representation/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (01)
|