"""When CURIES are used in an XML-based host language, and that host
language supports XML Namespaces, prefix values MUST be able to be
defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES]. Such host
languages MAY also provide additional prefix mapping definition
This is unnecessarily restrictive. I want to add a prefix declaration
mechanism and I want to keep namespace declarations out of the
picture. I see no reason for this not to be possible, other than
consistency with other XML formats. But I don't *want* that
consistency. I want OWL/XML processors not to have to deal with two
dereferencing mechanisms for CURIEs and I want OWL/XML to use
namespaces *solely* for element and attribute names (to avoid
confusing syntax and content).
The likely alternative is not to have CURIEs at all. Which seems silly.
Also, it's just a bit otiose. What XML language *doesn't* ,in some
sense, support XML Namespaces? What if I have a non-namespaced format
which has an open content model? If I put some SVG in there do I
suddenly have to support namespace prefix lookups?
One great advantage of CURIEs is, finally, a possibility of
*divorcing* XML Namespaces and abbreviating URIs. Yet the spec
*requires* confusing them. Please change this.
I'm fine with a SHOULD, though I think that's wrong.
I would think my organization would oppose going to PR without this