Re: CURIES and XML Host languages (PR#8058)

Bijan,

Just a note to formally respond that the working group agreed to make the
prefix mapping the responsibility of the host language.  Thanks for your
comment - we trust this resolves your issue.

> Hello,
> 
> I have a problem with a MUST requirement. I realize the document is in  
> CR, but I only just noticed it when thinking about adding CURIE  
> support to OWL/XML:
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization
> 
> In particular:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-curie-20090116/#s_syntax
> 
> """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  
> mechanisms."""
> 
> 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  
> change.
> 
> I apologize for not noting this point sooner.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 15:30:07 UTC