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

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

-- 
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