are unduly restrictive. We believe that they should normatively refer
to the generically latest versions of both standards.
Implementations that do not wish to update to the latest versions of
those standard could indicate their conformance profile by saying
"Supports RDF(RDF/XML) with Unicode 3.0 and XML 1.0 version 2". Since,
technically speaking, such implementations must reject documents
or models which, e.g., use characters only in Unicode 5.0 this
conformance message seems reasonable. It also frees implementations
to be conforming while accepting extended documents.
If we have missed other places with hard code references to particular
versions of XML and Unicode, we think they should be updated too.
Bijan Parsia, on behalf of the OWL working group.