W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: xmlsch-03 "lexical" mapping possible proposal plus discussion

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:26:44 -0400
Message-ID: <3EA47024.2080908@mitre.org>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

I agree with Pat.  See below.

pat hayes wrote:

>> The XML Schema group would prefer us to use the term "lexical mapping" 
>> instead
>> of "datatype mapping".
>> I see no reason why not, and so PROPOSE that we accept xmlsch-03 and 
>> action
>> all the editors to look for the term "datatype mapping" and replace it 
>> with
>> "lexical mapping".
>> [[
>>     We agree that it is useful to define a term to denote such mappings;
>>     in the interests of inter-specification consistency, we wonder 
>> whether
>>     you would be willing to consider using the term lexical mapping, 
>> which
>>     we are introducing in our forthcoming draft of XML Schema 1.1. The
>>     term datatype mapping seems unlikely to be usable in the XML Schema
>>     specification, where it would suggest to some readers a mapping from
>>     one datatype to another, rather than as here a mapping from lexical
>>     space to value space. (XML Schema 1.0 got by without a term for this
>>     concept.)
>> ]]
>> Two reasons we might have for not accepting are:
>> 1) it may be quite a large editorial change in terms of number of bytes
>> 2) if we decide that our whitespace treatment is sufficiently 
>> different from
>> XML Schema's that we should use a different term
> In Semantics I always refer to this as 'lexical-to-value mapping' . 
> Anyone want me to change this to 'lexical mapping'? The longer form is 
> readable (just) and harder to misunderstand, seems to me.

I like "lexical-to-value mapping" myself.  It seem to me leaving one end 
of the mapping out is asking for trouble, unless you are very firmly in 
context.  I myself would have tended to interpret "lexical mapping" as a 
mapping TO lexical, rather than a mapping FROM lexical (and would have 
thought a more natural name for this would have been "value mapping", if 
you had to name only one end).

> BTW, I have also now introduced the term 'datatype map' to refer to the 
> D's in D-intepretations, since they are now mappings from urirefs to 
> datatypes (sets of pairs) rather than simply sets of datatypes (to 
> handle the 'naming' issue properly).  So this is yet another source of 
> potential confusion with the 'datatype mapping' term.
> I could change that 'datatype map' terminology if people feel strongly 
> about it, by the way. Any other suggestions for what to call a mapping 
> from urirefs to datatypes? A datatype scheme? A datatype naming scheme? 
> A naming of datatypes?
> Pat

I like "datatype naming scheme" myself.  It certainly makes it clear 
that URIrefs are (here) being used as names for datatypes.


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 18:05:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC