Closed tirrolo closed 1 month ago
Hi, spec says "A field is an ExpressionMap that gives a name to an expression."
Actually, also in the ontology, Fields are subclasses of expression maps. Thus, I would phrase this more explicitly as: "A field is a particular kind of
ExpressionMap
".
Agreed.
As for the
ExpressionMap
specification, we also suggest to list the additional properties of Fields (e.g.,rml:fieldName
orrml:field
), instead of having them informally introduced in the text only.
You mean add these properties to rml-core? We don't want to do that, since that would couple rml-core to rml-lv. The choice was made early on to have separate modules that build on core (or on each other) to give implementations a choice to implement only specific modules.
Hi, spec says "A field is an ExpressionMap that gives a name to an expression." Actually, also in the ontology, Fields are subclasses of expression maps. Thus, I would phrase this more explicitly as: "A field is a particular kind of
ExpressionMap
".Agreed.
As for the
ExpressionMap
specification, we also suggest to list the additional properties of Fields (e.g.,rml:fieldName
orrml:field
), instead of having them informally introduced in the text only.You mean add these properties to rml-core? We don't want to do that, since that would couple rml-core to rml-lv. The choice was made early on to have separate modules that build on core (or on each other) to give implementations a choice to implement only specific modules.
No, I mean to have an explicit bullet list like core:
An [expression map](https://hive.inf.unibz.it/rml/rml-core/spec/docs/#dfn-expression-map) MAY have one the following properties:
0 or 1 rml:constant, or
0 or 1 rml:reference, or
0 or 1 rml:template.
So, something like:
A field MUST have the following properties:
1 rml:fieldName, ...
and MAY have the following properties:
0 or 1 rml:referenceFormulation
This can be done only for properties specific to fields, since those inherited from ExpressionMaps are already defined in core.
Ah I see. Also agreed.
Hi, spec says "A field is an ExpressionMap that gives a name to an expression."
Actually, also in the ontology, Fields are subclasses of expression maps. Thus, I would phrase this more explicitly as: "A field is a particular kind of
ExpressionMap
".As for the
ExpressionMap
specification, we also suggest to list the additional properties of Fields (e.g.,rml:fieldName
orrml:field
), instead of having them informally introduced in the text only.