[DIG-users] Individual types query

[Ian D. <ian...@hp...>]

A general question on the DIG 1.1 spec, but I'm especially interested in 
Sean's and Ralf's answers! I have a user bug report on Jena at the 
moment, where the situation is as follows (using Racer 1.7.23):

<tells [...attribs omitted for clarity...]>
     <defconcept name="http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
     <defconcept name="http://www.example.com/testontology#A"/>
     <defconcept name="http://www.example.com/testontology#B"/>
     <defindividual 
name="http://www.example.com/testinstances#TestInstance"/>
     <impliesc>
         <catom name="http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
         <catom name="http://www.example.com/testontology#B"/>
     </impliesc>
     <impliesc>
         <catom name="http://www.example.com/testontology#B"/>
         <catom name="http://www.example.com/testontology#A"/>
     </impliesc>
     <instanceof>
         <individual 
name="http://www.example.com/testinstances#TestInstance"/>
         <catom name="http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
     </instanceof>
</tells>

<asks [...]>
  <types id="q1">
   <individual name="http://www.example.com/testinstances#TestInstance"/>
  </types>
</asks>

<responses [...]>
     <conceptSet id="q1">
         <synonyms>
             <catom name="http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
         </synonyms>
     </conceptSet>
</responses>

The user was expecting C, B and A as the response, which seems 
reasonable.  It seems to me that <types> is returning the direct types 
(i.e. like <parents> rather than <ancestors>).

Is this the correct behaviour for DIG 1.1?  In other words, to get the 
full classification of TestInstance I should do <types>, followed by N 
queries of <ancestors> on the returned concept names?  I note that the 
spec is silent on the exact meaning of <types>.

Either way, I advocate that DIG 2.0 has an asks form for both the direct 
types and the closure of the concept hierarchy.  Is there a standard 
nomenclature for this difference in the DL community?

Regards,
Ian