This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1916 - lexical mappings are relations, not necessarily functions
Summary: lexical mappings are relations, not necessarily functions
Status: RESOLVED LATER
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: important, work, mappings cluster
Keywords: needsDrafting
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-08-30 18:14 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2007-03-09 17:48 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-08-30 18:14:05 UTC
At the ftf of May 2005 the WG recognized the need to ensure that all
parts of the Datatypes spec provide a consistent account of the nature
of lexical mappings and the value and lexical spaces.

The invariants we wish to express are:

   For all types, the lexical space is the domain of the lexical
   mapping, and the value space its domain.  There are no ineffable
   values, there are no meaningless lexical forms.

   For all primitive types and all types derived from them by
   restriction or constructed from them by list, the lexical
   mapping is a function:  each lexical form uniquely determines
   a value.

   For the special types, however, and for union types, the
   lexical mapping is not (necessarily) a function.  When these
   are used as the types of elements, xsi:type can used
   to specify which mapping to use.  

(It is also true that the context in which our type system 
is used may provide other mechanisms for addressing this 
problem.  The untypedAtomic mechanism of QT is one such; 
we should write nothing that appears to conflict with the 
existence of such a mechanism.)

The descriptions of the special types, of lexical mappings in
general, and of unions should be reviewed and if necessary
revised to ensure that the invariants identified above are
stated clearly and that nothing is stated which contradicts
them.

At the ftf in August 2005 the WG asked the editors to provide
wording for this topic to be considered at our meeting of
2 September 2005.
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2006-01-06 20:25:40 UTC
Proposal available at [1].

During 2006-01-06 telecon, the scope of this issue was broadened to also cover 
issue(s) related to the lexical mapping of anySimpleType/anyAtomicType in other 
contexts. See points 2~4 in [2].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Dec/0063.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Dec/0083.html
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-28 18:12:48 UTC
Owing to a slip of some kind, the editors have used the number
EP-16 for a recent proposal about finite implementations of
infinite datatypes.  I'm removing the label 'EP-16' from
this issue, in an attempt to reduce the level of confusion
to a bearable level.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-02-08 01:18:22 UTC
Bug 2784 has been created as the Structures counterpart of this issue.
Comment 4 David Ezell 2006-09-20 18:11:53 UTC
Marked as RESOLVED/WONTFIX per the minutes
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/01/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html#Review_of_open_issues
Comment 5 Mary Holstege 2007-03-09 17:48:19 UTC
Reopened as per minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2007Mar/0010.html