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

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

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:56:00 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b08baca17ef2f6d@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>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.

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?

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 17:56:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC