A datatype is understood to define a function, called the lexical-to-value mapping, from a lexical space (a set of character strings) to values.

Minor tweaking: maybe "character string" could be RDF strings). This avoids "character". An "RDF String" is a sequences of Unicode scale values -- all codepoints except the surrogates.

Unicode D76:
"Unicode scalar value: Any Unicode code point except high-surrogate and low-surrogate code points."

Yeah the wording needs to be improved. I think the best thing is to defer more to RDF Concepts.

Minor tweaking: maybe "character string" could be RDF strings).

While I agree, I see this as a separate issue because it is not only in this particular sentence. Instead, the term "character string" appears multiple times in the paragraph in which this sentence is.

Yeah the wording needs to be improved. I think the best thing is to defer more to RDF Concepts.

I agree. There is quite a bit of repetition here in terms of things that are already in RDF Concepts.

The paragraph also needs #64 which adds that rdf:dirLangString is an exception, along side rdf:langString.

The partial mapping of this issue has been fixed.

If there is anything remaining to be done, the title of the issue should be fixed. Otherwise the issue should be closed.

Usually we close the issue once the corresponding PR is merged.

What about the second (and directly related) part of my initial issue description? ("Related to this issue, the following sentence ...")

That's the issue. A PR to close the "partial mapping" problem has been merged that was created and merged because there was a separate issue on just this point. But the issue appears to have more in it than that. If it does, then the issue title should be changed to reflect the remaining outstanding point(s).

Which PR are you referring to? I assume it is #77 but that one is not merged yet. Was there another one?

I understand that the follow-up comments in this issue here mention some other things. Yet, the initial issue description mentions two points: the one to change "partial mapping" to "function" (or to "mapping") and the one about "character string is assigned no value". While PR #77 fixes the first one, the second one is not fixed by that PR (in it's current state). Do you want to do that in a separate PR or do you think it doesn't need to be addressed?

I've added the proposed text change to #77 as a commit. I can't make it a GH suggestion because it out of range of the text the commit changes.

Oops. My apologies. It looks as if I was confused as to which PR I had applied.

You are right, PR #77 is not applied yet.

I suppose I could add the other fix to the PR, if that seems reasonable.

@afs I don't see anything in PR #77 except the one-word change that I put in.

It's there now.

Oops again. It appears that you committed just before I did and then I couldn't figure out why my attempt to commit what I though you suggested in a comment was because I had to do some git magic on my machine to make the commits there look nicer so I force-pushed on top of your commit. But all should be OK now as the only change I made was to remove a couple of commas.

I haven't committed anything!
It might have been in a written-unsent comment that got sent later.
(GH editing has a memory and that can a bit odd moving between tabs on the same PR.)