bug: InputValue doesn't exist, and suggestion to delete sosa:hasInputValue and sosa:inputValueForExecution

[maximelefrancois86]

Definition of sosa:inputValueForExecution is "Relation between an InputValue and an Execution that used it."

The capitalization of InputValue is misleading here, one could believe there is a class named that way, but it's not true.

sdw-sosa-ssn/ssn/rdf/ontology/core/sosa-common.ttl

Line 371 in bb98570

Relation between an InputValue and an Execution that used it.

Also, do we really need this property sosa:hasInputValue and sosa:inputValueForExecution ?
They are over-complicating things, when one could simply enlarge the application scope of the existing property sosa:hasInput

Plus, deleting them removes the burden of finding more implementation evidence

[dr-shorthair]

I agree that "InputValue" should just be "input value". I think that is left over from an earlier/intermediate version where we (briefly) had an InputValue class.

The main thing is that hasInput applies to Procedures.
I think that would usually point to a type or definition.
While hasInputValue applies to Executions.
This would usually be a value or instance.

I find that both of these are very underspecified.
But see https://w3c.github.io/sdw-sosa-ssn/ssn/#paleo-atmosphere for a case where we found that they were both needed.

(We earlier agreed to provide inverses for all object-properties, so hasInputValue and inputValueForExecution come or go as a pair.)

[dr-shorthair]

We also agreed at the beginning of 2025 that we would not accept any new change requests on normative content.
Only bugs and documentation from here on.
So I will tag this future edition.