Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A Field is an ExpressionMap #26

Closed
tirrolo opened this issue May 29, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #33
Closed

A Field is an ExpressionMap #26

tirrolo opened this issue May 29, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #33

Comments

@tirrolo
Copy link
Contributor

tirrolo commented May 29, 2024

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 or rml:field), instead of having them informally introduced in the text only.

@pmaria
Copy link
Collaborator

pmaria commented May 29, 2024

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 or rml: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.

@tirrolo
Copy link
Contributor Author

tirrolo commented May 29, 2024

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 or rml: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.

@pmaria
Copy link
Collaborator

pmaria commented May 29, 2024

Ah I see. Also agreed.

elsdvlee added a commit to tirrolo/rml-lv that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2024
moving this discussing to issue kg-construct#26, as agreed
@elsdvlee elsdvlee mentioned this issue Jul 15, 2024
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants