Renaming L2V

Hello Everyone!

      In looking over http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/, 
I couldn't help but note that the name 'L2V' is somewhat misleading 
since it isn't a mapping L->V but rather D->(L->V). For clarity, perhaps 
it should be renamed to (something like) D2L2V, or perhaps L2V could be 
reworked to accept D as a parameter such as in L2V(D, L) -> V?

      I make this suggestion having found, in discussing with others and 
making illustrations of the various Interpretation structures and the 
relations between them, it is very awkward to express the intermediate 
steps made between the partial mapping of literals onto resources (IR) 
due to a naming conflict: L2V maps onto the actual lexical-to-value 
mapping for that data type, so it is hard to express L2V(D) as defined 
in the RDF semantics to the "L2V_D(L)" that is returned from L2V(D) and 
performs the actual lexical-to-value mapping (since, again, L2V as 
defined returns the mapping but is not itself the mapping). In other 
words, it is awkward to break down IL("sss"^^aaa) = L2V(I(aaa))(sss) 
into the partial relationships "sss"^^^aaa (from Literals) -> L2V -> 
Lexical-to-Value-Mapping -> IR since L2V and Lexical-to-Value mapping 
are not the same, and L2V itself is not the actual Lexical-to-Value 
mapping (ie. it is a misnomer; the name is misleading).

      (I acknowledge that my implicit definition of L2V_D(L) being 
returned from L2V(D) sufficiently disambiguated the two, but it doesn't 
address the fact that the name L2V is misleading in the original 
context, and it poses the additional problem of using terminology not 
specified in the original document.)

-- 
Alexander Darino, Freelancer
Ryoga Independent LLC

Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 08:42:22 UTC