Fwd: [DIG-users] Individual types query

[<r.f...@tu...>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ralf M=F6ller <r.f...@tu...>
> Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004  3:40:02 PM Europe/Berlin
> To: Ian Dickinson <ian...@hp...>
> Cc: Michael Wessel <mi....@su...>
> Subject: Re: [DIG-users] Individual types query
>
>
> On Friday, October 22, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Ian Dickinson wrote:
>
>> A general question on the DIG 1.1 spec, but I'm especially interested=20=

>> in Sean's and Ralf's answers! I have a user bug report on Jena at the=20=

>> moment, where the situation is as follows (using Racer 1.7.23):
>>
>> <tells [...attribs omitted for clarity...]>
>>     <defconcept name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
>>     <defconcept name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#A"/>
>>     <defconcept name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#B"/>
>>     <defindividual=20
>> name=3D"http://www.example.com/testinstances#TestInstance"/>
>>     <impliesc>
>>         <catom name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
>>         <catom name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#B"/>
>>     </impliesc>
>>     <impliesc>
>>         <catom name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#B"/>
>>         <catom name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#A"/>
>>     </impliesc>
>>     <instanceof>
>>         <individual=20
>> name=3D"http://www.example.com/testinstances#TestInstance"/>
>>         <catom name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
>>     </instanceof>
>> </tells>
>>
>> <asks [...]>
>>  <types id=3D"q1">
>>   <individual=20
>> name=3D"http://www.example.com/testinstances#TestInstance"/>
>>  </types>
>> </asks>
>>
>> <responses [...]>
>>     <conceptSet id=3D"q1">
>>         <synonyms>
>>             <catom name=3D"http://www.example.com/testontology#C"/>
>>         </synonyms>
>>     </conceptSet>
>> </responses>
>>
>> The user was expecting C, B and A as the response, which seems=20
>> reasonable.  It seems to me that <types> is returning the direct=20
>> types (i.e. like <parents> rather than <ancestors>).
>>
>> Is this the correct behaviour for DIG 1.1?  In other words, to get=20
>> the full classification of TestInstance I should do <types>, followed=20=

>> by N queries of <ancestors> on the returned concept names?  I note=20
>> that the spec is silent on the exact meaning of <types>.
>
> Ian,
>
> I think what we had in mind was that <types> returns the set of most=20=

> specific concept names of which a given individuals is an instance=20
> (i.e., the direct types).
>
>
>>
>> Either way, I advocate that DIG 2.0 has an asks form for both the=20
>> direct types and the closure of the concept hierarchy.
>
> If  you would like to avoid asking for the ancestors of each type,=20
> this does make sense.
>
>> Is there a standard nomenclature for this difference in the DL=20
>> community?
>
> Sure, KRSS defined (individuals-types ...) and=20
> (individual-direct-types ...)
>
> Best,
>
> Ralf
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on=20
>> ITManagersJournal
>> Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them.=20
>> Give us
>> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find=20
>> out more
>> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
>> _______________________________________________
>> DIG-users mailing list
>> DIG...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dig-users
>>
>