Re: Issue : should mappings be bijections? what happens if they are not?

Laurent,

I added this as issue 16.

I think the answer depends on whether we see a specific relationship
between modelReferences and schemaMapping (possibly part of issue 6). 
If there is a relationship, I'd like to see it formulated - it will also
depend on what exactly it means for an element or type to be annotated
with modelReference in the first place. I'll soon send another email in
the thread "why distinguish between simple and complex types?" that will
be relevant to this. 8-)

If we understand modelReference and schemaMapping as largely
independent, your question would lack the other side of the bijection -
a schemaMapping is on an element or type, but there is no given "set of
ontology instances" which would be the bijected counterpart of the
possible values of that element or type.

So if you have an assumption about the relationship between
modelReference and schemaMapping, let's first try to agree on that and
then we can tackle issue 16.

Best regards,

Jacek


On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:43 +0200, Laurent Henocque wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> When annotating an element: do we need to enforce the condition that there exists a one to one between the element type
> space and the set of ontology instances?
> If negative: what happens when a mapping raises an error? Do we have to provide hooks for error handlers in the
> specification?
> 
> I would be happy with bijections ;-)
> 
> - --
> *************************************************************************
> Laurent Henocque
> Maître de Conférences Hdr
> tel: +33 6 83 88 20 01
> Enseignant à l'Ecole Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Luminy - Marseille
>     http://www.esil.univ-mrs.fr
> Chercheur au Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Information et des Systèmes - Marseille
>     http://www.lsis.org
> 
> clé publique open pgp / open pgp public key :
> http://www.esil.univ-mrs.fr/~henocque/0x987E183.pub.asc
> ************************************************************************
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFEhXiHIF1tz5h+GDARAhjSAJ4+tPyZEAJ4Gu4uTOyWx0G+mZmmhgCbBEMa
> aiL5Dzc5RhSRKX1+NPFt1Xs=
> =Q5l8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:25:51 UTC