Why does a valueMap not have a specific termMap subclass? about rml-fnml HOT 7 CLOSED

Adding the ExpressionMap as a "block" involving the execution and the output which are each defined as term maps, I think we have a good definition. Maybe we can conclude this issue if everyone agrees.

from rml-fnml.

Given we don't introduce a definition for the object of a valueMap predicate different from the original TermMap definition, I guess there didn't seem to be a clear reason to introduce a new concept, but feel free to give feedback on that :)

from rml-fnml.

From my point of view (there are probably other people in the CG that know better the formalism), it is misleading that we have specific subclasses of term map for the different kinds, but that we do not have a specific subclass for valueMap. Would a definition for valueMap make sense to be added to the spec?

from rml-fnml.

I personally don't see a benefit, as the definition is exactly the same, but we can discuss during the bi-weekly :)

from rml-fnml.

Is this still applicable since everything except Function Execution is now a Term Map?

from rml-fnml.

It's still applicable. I personally think that having an additional class with the same definition is more misleading and unnecessarily constraining the ontology, but I don't think we reached consensus on that yet.

from rml-fnml.

Consensus! Closing!

from rml-fnml.