Open pmaria opened 5 months ago
couldn't we have another option to have the domain as rml:ExpressionMap
?
couldn't we have another option to have the domain as
rml:ExpressionMap
?
That would be too broad, since there are expression maps that do not directly cause the generation of a term (part), like rml:ChildMap
and rml:ParentMap
.
I agree with @pmaria in this, to have as domain the union of both instead of rml:ExpressionMap
is more accurate. I'll add this and the other pending changes to the IO ontology this week
right and what about the DatatypeMap? I.e. why only the LanguageMap and not the DatatypeMap?
Yes, good question. I think we can see DatatypeMap as a TermMap in the sense that it always generates an IRI. It definitely also generates a part of a literal term. I don't believe we currently classed it as a TermMap. So maybe we should raise an issue for this.
that's an interesting observation, 👍 on raising an issue for this.
I didn't exactly mean this though 😅 I meant a union of rml:TermMap
, rml:LanguageMap
and rml:DatatypeMap
.
If one can define a larget in the rml:LanguageMap
, then it should be the same for a rml:DatatypeMap
no?
I agree, we should also be able to define a target on a rml:DatatypeMap
if we are allowing a target on a rml:LanguageMap
The
rdfs:domain
ofrml:logicalTarget
is defined to berml:TermMap
, yet it is also used onrml:LanguageMap
which is not arml:TermMap
.Options:
rml:logicalTarget
rml:TermMap
andrml:LanguageMap