[Top] [All Lists]

[cctont-imp] COMMENTS: Binary Object. Type

To: CCT Ontology Implementation <cctont-imp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Garret Minakawa <Garret.Minakawa@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:45:09 -0700
Message-id: <40DB5975.3954D6D8@xxxxxxxxxx>
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)

Attachment: Garret.Minakawa.vcf
Description: Card for Garret Minakawa

To  Post: mailto:cctont-imp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives:
Community Wiki:
Community Files:
Community Portal:    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [cctont-imp] COMMENTS: Binary Object. Type, Garret Minakawa <=