2. Making Statements About
Resources
RDF is intended to provide a simple way to state properties of (make
assertions about) Web resources, e.g., Web pages. For example, imagine that
we want to state the fact that someone named John Smith created a particular
Web page. A straightforward way to state this in English would be in the form
of a simple statement such as:
http://www.example.org/index.html has a
creator whose value is John Smith
The "whose value is" grates.
Suggest:http://... has creator ... No doubt you will note
the difference between "John Smith" and John Smith later.
We've underlined parts of this statement to illustrate that, in order to
describe the properties of something, we need ways to name, or identify, a
number of things:
- We need a way to identify the thing we want to describe (the Web page,
in this case)
- We need a way to identify a specific property (the creator) "the creator" is not the property, its the
value of the property. "has creator" is a property.of the
thing that we want to describe
- We need a way to identify the thing we want to assign as the value of
this property (who the creator is), for the thing we want to describe
In this statement, we've used the Web page's URL (Uniform Resource
Locator) to identify it. In addition, we've used the word "creator" to
identify the property we want to talk about, and the two words "John Smith"
to identify the thing (a person) we want to say is the value of this
property.
We could state other properties of this Web page by writing additional
English statements of the same general form, using the URL to identify the
page, and words (or other expressions) to identify the properties and their
values. For example, to specify the date the page was created, and the
language in which the page is written, we could write the additional
statements:
http://www.example.org/index.html has a
creation-date whose value is August 16, 1999
http://www.example.org/index.html has a language whose
value is English
RDF is based on the idea that the things we want to describe have
properties which have values, and that resources can be described by making
statements, similar to those above, that specify those properties and values.
Very nice.RDF uses a
particular terminology for talking about the various parts of statements.
Specifically, the part that identifies the thing the statement is about (the
Web page in this example) is called the subject. The part that
identifies the property or characteristic of the subject that the statement
specifies (creator, creation-date, or language in these examples) is called
the predicate, and the part that identifies the value of that
property is called the object. So, taking the English statement
http://www.example.org/index.html has a
creator whose value is John Smith
the RDF terms for the various parts of the statement are:
- the subject is the URL
http://www.example.org/index.html
- the predicate is the word "creator" has a creator
- the object is the words "John Smith"
However, while English is good for communicating between
(English-speaking) humansbut not between
computers., RDF is about making machine-processable
statements. To make these kinds of statements suitable for processing by
machines, we need two things:
- a system of machine-processable identifiers that allows us to identify
a subject, predicate, or object in a statement without any possibility of
confusion with a similar-looking identifier that might be used by someone
else on the Web.
- a machine-processable format languagefor representing these statements
and exchanging them between machines.
Fortunately, the existing Web architecture provides us with both of the
necessary mechanisms. The Web's Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) provides us
with a way to uniquely identify anything we want to talk about in an RDF
statement, and the Extensible Markup Language (XML) provides us with a format
for representing and exchanging RDF statements. The next two sections briefly
describe these mechanisms.
2.1 Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs)
If we want to discuss something, we must first identify name it. How else will we know what we are
referring to? In everyday communication, we use references such as "Bob",
"The Moon", "373 Whitaker Ave.", "California", "VIN 2745534", "today's
weather", etc., to identify things. Ambiguities in these identifiers are
generally resolved in terms of a shared semantic delete semantic - its not
needed context between the sender and the receiver. To refer
to "things" on the Web, we also use identifiers.
As we've seen, the Web already provides one form of identifier, the
Uniform Resource Locator (URL). We used a URL in our original
example to identify the Web page that John Smith created. A URL is a
character string that identifies a Web resource by representing its primary
access mechanism (essentially, its network "location"). However, we would
like to be able to record information about many things in addition to Web
pages. In particular, we'd like to record information about lots of things
that don't have network locations or URLs. For example, I (a human being)
don't have a network location or URL, and yet my employer needs to record all
sorts of things about me in order to pay my salary, keep track of the work
that I've been doing, and so on. My doctor needs to record other sorts of
things about me in order to keep track of my medical history, tests that have
been performed (and the results, who performed them, and when), inoculations
I've received, etc.
We've recorded information about lots of things that don't have URLs in
files (both manual and automated) for many years, and the way we identify
those things is by assigning them identifiers:
I think you can assume that the
reader knows what an identifier is.
values that we uniquely associate with the individual things. The
identifiers we use to identify various kinds of things go by names like
"Social Security Number", "Part Number", "license number", "employee number",
"user-id", etc. In some cases, these identifiers (such as Social Security
Numbers) are assigned by a recognized authority of some kind. In other cases,
these identifiers are generated by a private organization or individual. In
some cases, these identifiers have a national or international scope within
which they are unique (a Social Security Number has national scope), while in
other cases they may only be unique within a very limited scope (my employee
number is only unique among the numbers assigned by my specific employer).
Nevertheless, these identifiers serve, if used properly, to identify the
things we want to talk about.
The Web provides its own form of identifier for these purposes, called the
Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI). The URLs we've already discussed are a particular kind
of URI. All URIs share the property that different persons or organizations
can independently create them, and use them to identify things. However, URIs
are not limited to identifying things that have network locations, or use
other computer access mechanisms. In fact, we can create a URI to refer to
anything we want to talk about, including
- network-accessible things, such as an electronic document, an image, a
service (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), or a collection
of other resources.
- things that are not network-accessible, such as human beings,
corporations, and bound books in a library.
- abstract concepts that don't physically exist, like the concept of a
"creator".
URIs essentially constitute an infinite stock of names that can be used to
identify things. A number of different URI schemes (URI forms) have
been already been developed, and are being used, for various purposes.
Examples include:
- http: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol, primarily for Web pages)
- mailto: (email addresses), e.g., mailto:em@w3.org
- ftp: (File Transfer Protocol)
- urn: (Uniform Resource Names, intended to be persistent
location-independent resource identifiers), e.g.,
urn:isbn:0-520-02356-0 (for a book)
URIs are defined in RFC
2396 [URI]. Some additional discussion of URIs can
be found in Naming and Addressing:
URIs, URLs, ... [NAMEADDRESS]. A list of
existing URI schemes can be found in Addressing Schemes [ADDRESS-SCHEMES], and it is a good idea to
consider adapting one of the existing schemes for any specialized
identification purposes you may have, rather than trying to invent a new
one.
No one person or organization controls who makes URIs or how they can be
used. While some URI schemes, such as URL's http:, depend on
centralized systems such as DNS, other schemes, such as freenet:,
are completely decentralized. This means that, as with any other kind of
name, you don't need special authority or permission to create a URI for
something. Also, you can create URIs for things you don't own, just as in
ordinary language you can use whatever name you like for things you don't
own. The URI is the foundation of the Web. While nearly every other part of
the Web can be replaced, the URI cannot: it holds the Web together.
Since the URI is such a general identification mechanism, capable of
identifying anything, it should not be surprising that RDF uses URIs as the
basis of its mechanism for identifying the subjects, predicates, and objects
in statements. To be more precise, RDF uses URI
referencessorta - URI references allow relative URI's. RDF
requires absolute URI references. Concepts doc talks about RDF URI
references. For technical reasons to do with XML base, we are not really
using URI references. We need to sync the docs on this and its important we
get it
right.[URI] to define its
subjects, predicates, and objects. A URI reference (or URIref) is a
URI, together with an optional fragment identifier at the end. For
example, the URI reference
http://www.example.org/index.html#section2 consists of the URI
http://www.example.org/index.html and (separated by the "#"
character) the fragment identifier Section2. RDF defines a
resource as anything that is identifiable by a URI reference, and
hence using URIrefs allows RDF to describe practically anything, and to state
relationships between such things as well.
In order to make writing URIrefs easier, URIrefs may be either
absolute or relative. An absolute URIref refers to
a resource independently of the context in which the URIref appears, e.g.,
the URIref http://www.example.org/index.html. A relative
URIref is a shorthand form of an absolute URIref, where some prefix of the
URIref is missing, and information from the context in which the URIref
appears is required to fill in the missing information. For example, the
relative URIref otherpage.html, when appearing in a resource
http://www.example.org/index.html, would be filled out to the
absolute URIref http://www.example.org/otherpage.html. A URIref
without a URI part is considered a reference to the current document (the
document in which it appears). So, an empty URIref within a document is
considered equivalent to the URIref of the document itself. A URIref
consisting of just a fragment identifier is considered equivalent to the
URIref of the document in which it appears, with the fragment identifier
appended to it. For example, within
http://www.example.org/index.html, if #section2 appeared as
a URIref, it would be considered equivalent to the absolute URIref
http://www.example.org/index.html#section2.
Both RDF and web browsers use URIrefs to identify things. However, RDF and
browsers interpret URIrefs in slightly different ways. This is because RDF
uses URIrefs only to identify things, while browsers also use
URIrefs to retrieve things. Often there is no effective difference,
but in some cases the difference can be significant. One obvious difference
is when a URIref is used in a browser, there is the expectation that it
identifies a resource that can actually be retrieved: that something is
actually "at" the location identified by the URI. However, in RDF a URIref
may be used to identify something, like a person, that has no physical
existence does anything have a
*physical* existence on the web? Suggest:... such as, for example, a
person, that cannot be retrieved on the web.on the web, and hence
can't be retrieved. People sometimes use RDF together with a convention that,
when a URIref is used to identify an RDF resource, a page containing
descriptive information about that resource will be placed on the web "at"
that URI, so that the URIref can be used in a browser to retrieve that
information. This can be a useful convention in some circumstances (although
it creates a difficulty in distinguishing the identity of the original
resource from the identity of the web page describing it). However, this
convention is not an explicit part of the definition of RDF, and RDF itself
does not assume that a URIref identifies something that can be retrieved.
Another difference is in the way URIrefs with fragment identifiers are
handled. Fragment identifiers are often seen in URLs that identify HTML
documents, where they serve to identify a specific place within the document
identified by the URL. In normal HTML usage, where URI references are used to
retrieve the indicated resources, the two URIrefs:
http://www.example.org/index.html
http://www.example.org/index.html#Section2
are related (they both refer to the same document, the second one identifying
a location within the first one). However, as noted already, RDF uses URI
references purely to
identify resources, not to retrieve them, and
RDF assumes no particular relationship between these two URIrefs. As far as
RDF is concerned, they are syntactically different URI references, and hence
may refer to unrelated things. (This doesn't mean that the HTML-defined
containment relationship might not exist, just that RDF doesn't assume that a
relationship exists based only on the fact that the URI parts of the URI
references are the same.)
Lots of stuff here we have to sync up
on.
In later sections, we'll see how RDF uses URIrefs for identifying the
subjects, predicates, and objects in statements. But before we do that, we
need to briefly introduce, in the next section, the basis of how RDF
statements can be physically represented and exchanged.
This section on URI's seems like a
big barrier to the reader early on. I'd expect a primer to introduce stuff
more gradually. In style, this is beginning to feel more like a text book
than a primer.
2.2 Documents: Extensible
Markup Language (XML)
The Extensible
Markup Language [XML] was designed to
allow anyone to design their own document format and then write a document in
that format. Like HTML documents (Web pages), XML documents contain text.
This text consists primarily of plain text content, and markup in the form of
tags. This markup allows a processing program to interpret the various pieces
of content (elements). In HTML, the set of permissible tags, and their
interpretation, is defined by the HTML specification. However, XML allows
users to define their own markup languages (tags and the structures in which
they can appear) adapted to their own specific requirements. For example, the
following is a simple passage marked up using an XML-based markup
language:
<sentence><person href="http://example.com/#me">I</person>
just got a new pet <animal>dog</animal>.</sentence>
Elements delimited by tags (<sentence>,
<person>, etc.) are introduced to reflect a particular
structure associated with the passage. These tags allow a program written
with an understanding of these particular elements to properly interpret the
passage.
This particular markup language uses the words "sentence," "person," and
"animal" as tag names in an attempt to convey some of the meaning of the
elements; and they would convey meaning to an English-speaking
person reading it, or to a program specifically written to interpret this
vocabulary. However, there is no built-in meaning here. For example, to
non-English speakers, or to a program not written to understand this markup,
the element <person> may mean absolutely nothing. Take the
following passage, for example:
<dfgre><reghh bjhb="http://example.com/#me">I</reghh>
just got a new pet <yudis>dog</yudis>.</dfgre>
To a machine, this passage has exactly the same structure as the previous
example. However, it is no longer clear to an English-speaker what is being
said, because the tags are no longer English words. Moreover, others may have
used the same words as tags in their own markup languages, but with
completely different intended meanings. For example, "sentence" in another
markup language might refer to the amount of time that a convicted criminal
must serve in a penal institution. So additional mechanisms must be provided
to help keep XML vocabulary straight.
To prevent confusion, it is necessary to uniquely identify markup
elements. This is done in XML using XML Namespaces [XML-NS]. A namespace is just a way of
identifying a part of the Web (space) which acts as a qualifier for a
specific set of names. A namespace is created for an XML markup language by
creating a URI for it. By qualifying tag names with the URIs of their
namespaces, anyone can create their own tags and properly distinguish them
from tags with identical spellings created by others. A useful practice is to
create a Web page to describe the markup language (and the intended meaning
of the tags) and use the URL of that Web page as the URI for its namespace.
The following example illustrates the use of an XML namespace.
<my:sentence xmlns:my="http://example.org/xml/documents/">
<my:person my:href="http://example.com/#me">I</my:person>
just got a new pet <my:animal>dog</my:animal>.
</my:sentence>
In this example, xmlns:my="http://example.org/xml/documents/
declares a namespace for use in this piece of XML. It maps the
prefix my to the namespace URI
http://example.org/xml/documents/. The XML content can then use
qualified names (or QNames) like my:person as
tags. A QName contains a prefix that identifies a namespace, followed by a
colon, and then a local name for an XML tag (element) or attribute.
By using namespace URIs to distinguish specific collections of names, and
qualifying tags with the URIs of the namespaces they come from, as in this
example, we don't have to worry about tag names conflicting. Two tags having
the same spelling are considered the same only if they also have the same
namespace URIs.
RDF defines a specific XML markup language, referred to as
RDF/XML, for use in representing RDF information, and for exchanging
it between machines. An example of RDF/XML was given in Section 1, and the language is described in more detail in
Section 3.
Do we really need this about XML? Is
a basic understanding of XML a requirement on the reader?
2.3 The RDF Model
Now that we've introduced URI references for identifying things we want to
talk about on the Web, and XML as a machine-processable way of representing
RDF statements, we can describe how RDF lets us use URIs to make statements
about resources. In the introduction, we said that RDF was based on the idea
of expressing simple statements about resources, where those statements are
built using subjects, predicates, and objects. In RDF, we could represent our
original English statement:
http://www.example.org/index.html has a
creator whose value is John Smith
by an RDF statement having:
- a subject http://www.example.org/index.html
- a predicate http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator Is that spelt correctly. I seem to recall
dc properties had an initial capital letter.
- and an object http://www.example.org/staffid/85740
Note how we have introduced URIrefs to identify not only the subject of
the original statement, but also the predicate and object, instead of using
the words "creator" and "John Smith", respectively. We'll discuss this
further a bit later on.
RDF models statements as nodes and arcs in a graph. In this notation, a
statement is represented by:
- a node for the subject, labeled with its URIref
- a node for the object, labeled with its URIref
- an arc for the predicate, labeled with its URIref, directed from the
subject node to the object node.
So the RDF statement above would be represented by the graph shown in
Figure 1:
Collections of statements are represented by corresponding collections of
nodes and arcs. So if we wanted to also represent the additional
statements
http://www.example.org/index.html has a
creation-date whose value is August 16, 1999
http://www.example.org/index.html has a language whose
value is English
we could, by introducing suitable URIrefs to name the properties
"creation-date" and "language", use the graph shown in Figure 2:
Figure 2 illustrates that RDF permits the objects of statements (but not
the subjects or predicates) to be constant values (called literals)
represented by character strings, as well as URIrefsthe object is not
the URI ref; the object is the resource identified by the URI
ref., in order to represent certain kinds of property
values. In drawing RDF graphs, nodes that represent resources identified by
URIrefs are shown as ellipses, while nodes that represent literals are shown
as boxes (labeled by the literal itself). RDF graphs are technically what do you mean by technicall? The
mathematicians are having a lot of trouble deciding exactly what sort of
graph and RDF graph is and Pat is staying away from having to get that
"right". Suggest:can be described as
"labeled directed graphs", since the arcs have labels, and are "directed"
(point in a specific direction, from subject to object).
Sometimes it is not convenient to draw graphs, so an alternative way of
writing down the statements, called N-Triples,
can also be used. In the N-Triples notation, each statement in the graph is
written as a simple triple of subject, predicate, and object node labels
(either URIref or literal), in that order. The N-Triples representing the
three statements shown in Figure 2 would be written: We should not be drawing this much attention
to N-Triples. It is an internal format for representing our test cases. If we
make it too "public" then we have to consider things like
internationalization for it etc. Suggest do the same as you have done here,
but omit the references to N-Triples. Just talk about writing out the triples
in full.
<http://www.example.org/index.html> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator> <http://www.example.org/staffid/85740> .
<http://www.example.org/index.html> <http://www.example.org/terms/creation-date> "August 16, 1999" .
<http://www.example.org/index.html> <http://www.example.org/terms/language> "English" .
Each triple corresponds to a single arc in the graph, complete with the
arc's beginning and ending nodes (the subject and object of the statement).
Unlike the drawn graph (but like the original statements), the N-Triples
notation requires that a node be separately identified for each statement it
appears in. So, for example, http://www.example.org/index.html
appears three times (once in each triple) in the N-Triples representation of
the graph, but only once in the drawn graph. However, the triples represent
exactly the same information as the graph.Is from "Unlike" onwards needed. Doesn't seem
like a very interesting observation.
The N-triples syntax requires that URI references be written out in full,
in angle brackets, which, as the example above illustrates, can result in
very long lines. For convenience, we will use a shorthand way of writing
triples in the rest of this Primer, and also in other RDF specifications. In
this shorthand, we can substitute a QName without angle brackets as an
abbreviation of a full URI reference. So, for example, if the QName prefix
foo is mapped to the namespace URI
http://example.org/somewhere/, then the QName foo:bar is
shorthand for the URIref http://example.org/somewhere/bar. We will
also make extensive use in these examples of several "well-known" QName
prefixes (which we will use without explicitly specifying them each time),
defined as follows:
prefix rdf:, namespace URI:
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
prefix rdfs:, namespace URI:
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
prefix dc:, namespace URI:
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
prefix daml:, namespace URI:
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#
prefix ex:, namespace URI: http://www.example.org/ (or
http://www.example.com/)
prefix xsd:, namespace URI:
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
We will also use variations on the "example" prefix ex: as needed
in the examples, where this will not cause confusion, for example,
prefix exterms:, namespace URI:
http://www.example.org/terms/ (for terms used by our example
organization),
prefix exstaff:, namespace URI:
http://www.example.org/staffid/ (for our example organization's
staff identifiers),
prefix ex2:, namespace URI: http://www.domain2.example.org/
(for a second example organization), and so on.
Using our new shorthand, we can write the previous set of triples as:
ex:index.html dc:creator exstaff:85740 .
ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "August 16, 1999" .
ex:index.html exterms:language "English" .
The examples we've just given of RDF statements begin to illustrate some
of the advantages of using URIrefs as RDF's basic way of identifying things.
For instance, instead of identifying the creator of the Web page in our first
example by the character string "John Smith", we've assigned him a URIref, in
this case (using a URIref based on his employee number)
http://www.example.org/staffid/85740 . An advantage of using a
URIref in this case is that we can be more precise in our identification.
That is, the creator of the page isn't the character string "John Smith", or
any one of the thousands of people named John Smith, but the particular John
Smith associated with that URIref (whoever created the URIref defines the
association). Moreover, since we have a URIref for the creator of the page,
it is a full-fledged resource, and we can record additional information about
him, such as his name, and age, as in the graph shown in Figure 3:Again, very nicely done.
These examples also illustrate that RDF uses URIrefs as
predicates no they name
predicates in RDF statements. That is, rather than using
character strings (or words) such as "creator" or "name" to identify
properties, RDF uses URIrefs. Using URIrefs to identify properties is
important for a number of reasons. First, it allows us to distinguish the
properties we use from properties someone else may use that would otherwise
be identified by the same character string. For instance, in our example,
example.org uses "name" to mean someone's full name written out as a
character string literal (e.g., "John Smith"), but someone else may intend
"name" to mean something different (e.g., the name of a variable in a piece
of program text). A program encountering "name" as a property identifier on
the Web wouldn't necessarily be able to distinguish these uses. However, if
example.org writes http://www.example.org/terms/name for its "name"
property, and the other person writes
http://www.domain2.example.org/genealogy/terms/name for hers, we can
keep straight the fact that there are distinct properties involved (even if a
program cannot automatically determine the distinct meanings). Another reason
why it is important to use URIrefs to identify properties is that it allows
us to treat RDF properties as resources themselves. Since properties are
resources, we can record descriptive information about them (e.g., the
English description of what example.org means by "name"), simply by adding
additional RDF statements with the property's URIref as the subject.
Using URIrefs as to identifysubjects,
predicates, and objects in RDF statements allows us to begin to develop and
use a shared vocabulary on the Web, reflecting (and creating) a shared
understanding of the concepts we talk about. For example, in the triple
ex:index.html dc:creator exstaff:85740 .
the predicate dc:creator, when fully expanded as a URIref, is an
unambiguous reference to the "creator" attribute in the Dublin Core metadata
attribute set, a widely-used collection of attributes (properties) for
describing information of all kinds. The writer of this triple is effectively
saying that the relationship between the Web page (identified by
http://www.example.org/index.html ) and the creator of the page (a
distinct person, identified by http://www.example.org/staffid/85740
) is exactly the concept defined that
url does not define it; it names it. by
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator . Moreover, anyone else, or
any program, that understands
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator will know exactly what is
meant by this relationship.
Of course, RDF's use of URIrefs doesn't solve all our problems because,
for example, people can still use different URIrefs to refer to the same
thing. However, the fact that these different URIrefs are used in the
commonly-accessible "Web space" creates the opportunity both to identify
equivalences among these different references, and to migrate toward the use
of common references.
The result of all this is that RDF provides a way to make statements that
applications can more easily process. Now an application can't actually
"understand" such statements, of course, but it can deal with them in a way
that makes it seem like it does. For example, a user could search the Web for
all book reviews and create an average rating for each book. Then, the user
could put that information back on the Web. Another web site could take that
list of book rating averages and create a "Top Ten Highest Rated Books" page.
Here, the availability and use of a shared vocabulary about ratings, and a
shared group of URIrefs identifying the books they apply to, allows
individuals to build a mutually-understood and increasingly-powerful (as
additional contributions are made) "information base" about books on the Web.
The same principle applies to the vast amounts of information that people
create about thousands of subjects every day on the Web.
RDF statements are similar to a number of other formats for recording
information, such as:
- entries in a simple record or catalog listing describing the resource
in a data processing system.
- rows in a simple doesn't work for
complicated ones then? relational database.
- simple assertions in formal logic
and information in these formats can be treated as translated into RDF statements, allowing RDF to
be used as a unifying model for integrating data from many sources. ... to be used to integrate data from many
sources.
2.4
Structured Property Values and Blank Nodes
Things would be very simple if the only types of information we had to
record about things were obviously in the form of the simple RDF statements
we've illustrated so far. However, most real-world data involves structures
that are more complicated than that, at least on the surface. For instance,
in our original example, we recorded the date the Web page was created as a
single exterms:creation-date property, with a simple character
string literal as its value. However, suppose we wanted to show, as the value
of the exterms:creation-date property, the month, day, and year as
separate pieces of information? Or, in the case of John Smith's personal
information, suppose we wanted to record his address. We might write the
whole address out as a character string literal, as in the triple
exstaff:85740 exterms:address "1501 Grant Avenue, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730" .
However, suppose we wanted to record John's address as a
structure consisting of separate street, city, state, and Zip code
values? How do we do this in RDF?
We can represent such structured information in RDF by considering the
aggregate thing we want to talk about (like John Smith's address) as a
separate delete
"separate" resource, and then making separate delete "separate" statements
about that new resource. So, in the RDF graph, in order to break up John
Smith's address into its component parts, we create a new node to represent
the concept of John Smith's address, and assign that concept a new URIref to
identify it, say http://www.example.org/addressid/85740 (which we
will abbreviate as exaddressid:85740). We then write RDF statements
(create additional arcs and nodes) with that node as the subject, to
represent the additional information, producing the graph shown in Figure
4:
or the triples:
exstaff:85740 exterms:address exaddressid:85740 .
exaddressid:85740 exterms:street "1501 Grant Avenue" .
exaddressid:85740 exterms:city "Bedford" .
exaddressid:85740 exterms:state "Massachusetts" .
exaddressid:85740 exterms:Zip "01730" .
"Bedford" is not the city, its the
name of the city. Similarly for state. Suggest rename properties to cityName,
and stateName. Not sure what to rename street to.
Using this approach allows us to represent structured information in RDF,
but it can involve generating numerous "intermediate" URIrefs to represent
aggregate concepts such as John's address, concepts that may never need to be
referred to directly from outside a particular graph, and thus don't,
strictly speaking, require "universal" identifiers. In addition, in the
drawing of the graph representing the collection of statements shown
in Figure 4, we don't really need the URIref we assigned to identify "John
Smith's address", since we could just as easily have drawn the graph as in
Figure 5:
In Figure 5, which is a perfectly good RDF graph, we've used a node
without a label to stand for the concept of "John Smith's address". This
unlabeled node, or blank node, functions perfectly Bold move claiming perfection.
well in the drawing without needing a URIref, since the node itself provides
the necessary connectivity between the various other parts of the graph.
(Blank nodes were previously called anonymous resources in [RDF-MS].) However, we do need some form of explicit
identifier for that node if we are going to represent this graph as triples.
To see this, we can try to write the triples corresponding to what is shown
in the drawn graph. What we would get would be something like:
exstaff:85740 exterms:address ??? .
??? exterms:street "1501 Grant Avenue" .
??? exterms:city "Bedford" .
??? exterms:state "Massachusetts" .
??? exterms:Zip "01730"
where ??? stands for something that indicates the presence of ... that identifies the blank node. Since a
complex graph might contain more than one blank node, we also need a way to
differentiate between the various blank nodes in the triples representation
of the graph. To do this, the triples notation uses a node
identifier, having the form _:name, to indicate the presence of
a blank node. Primer should not be
teaching N-triples. Suggest describe as if inventing notation. There can be a
footnote somewhere that says we really use a format like this for our test
cases. Thinking about it, do we really need to keep giving triples
representations for everything. Won't the picture of the graph
suffice? For instance, in this example we might generate the
node identifier _:johnaddress to refer to the blank node, in which
case the resulting triples might be:
exstaff:85740 exterms:address _:johnaddress .
_:johnaddress exterms:street "1501 Grant Avenue" .
_:johnaddress exterms:city "Bedford" .
_:johnaddress exterms:state "Massachusetts" .
_:johnaddress exterms:Zip "01730" .
In a triples representation of a graph, each distinct blank node in the
graph is given a different node identifier. Unlike URIrefs and literals, node
identifiers are not considered to be actual parts ... node identifiers do not appear in the graph. They
are just a way of representing a blank node when a graph is written in triple
form. of the RDF graph (this can be seen by looking at the drawn graph
in Figure 5 and noting that there is no node identifier used to label the
blank node). Node identifiers only have significance within the triple
representation of the graph, and only for the purpose of distinguishing one
blank node from another (so that two collections of triples There is
confusion here about what a triple is. Is it the abstraction (subject,
predicate, object) or is it a line of N-Triples?Confusion here over what a
triple is. Is it the abstraction (subject, predicate, object) or
is that differ only by re-naming their node
identifiers are considered to represent identical RDF graphs). Node
identifiers also have significance only within the triples representing a
single graph (so that two different graphs with the same number of blank
nodes might use the same node identifiers to distinguish them, and it would
be unwise wrong to assume that blank
nodes from different graphs having the same node identifiers referred to the
same resourcesuggests blank nodes refer
to a specific resource, which in general they do not.). If it
is expected that a node in a graph will need to be referenced from outside
the graph, a URIref should be assigned to identify it.
At the beginning of this section, we noted that we can represent aggregate
structures, like John Smith's address, by considering the aggregate thing we
want to talk about as a separatedelete
"separate"resource, and then making separate delete "separate" statements
about that new resource. This example illustrates an important aspect of RDF:
RDF directly represents only binary relationships, e.g. the
relationship between John Smith and the literal representing his address.
When we try to deal with "deal with" is
weak terminology. be specific.representthe relationship
between John and the collection of separate components of this
address, we are dealing with an n-ary (n-way) relationship (in this
case, n=5) between John and the street, city, state, and zip components. In
order to represent such structures directly in RDF (e.g., considering the
address as a collection of street, city, state, and zip sub-components), we
need to break this n-way relationship up into a collection of separate binary
relationships. Blank nodes give us one way to do this. Each time we have an
n-ary relationship, we can choose one of the participants as the subject of
the relationship (John in this case), and create a blank node to represent
the rest of the relationship (John's address in this case). We can then
represent the remaining participants in the relationship (such as the city in
our example) as separate properties of the new resource represented by the
blank node.
Blank nodes also give us a way to more accurately model statements about
resources that may not have URIs, but that are described in terms of
relationships with other resources that do have URIs. For example,
when making statements about a person, say Jane Smith, it may seem natural to
use that person's email address as her URI, e.g.,
mailto:jane@example.org. However, this approach can cause a number
of problems. One obvious problem is that Jane Smith's email address may
change when she changes jobs, and so it may be hard to combine information
about Jane recorded at different times. Another problem is that we may want
to record information about Jane's mailbox (e.g., the server it is on) as
well as about Jane herself (e.g., her current address), and using a URIref
for Jane based on her email address makes it difficult to know which thing
we're talking about. This last is the
'real' reason. The issue of things changing is one that we have whatever we
do. Does your employer recycle employee numbers? Suggest drop change reason
and focus on issue of precise naming. The same problem exists
when a company's Web page URL, say http://www.example.com/, is used
as the URI of the company itself. Once again, we may need to record
information about the Web page (e.g., who created it and when) as well as
about the company, and using http://www.example.com/ as an
identifier for both makes it difficult to know which thing we're talking
about.
The fundamental problem is that using Jane's email address as a
stand-in for Jane is an inaccurate model: ... is inaccurate. Jane's email address
identifies a mailbox, and Jane and her mailbox are not the same thing. When
Jane herself doesn't have a URI, we can use a
blank node to represent her.a blank node gives us a more accurate way
of modeling this situation. We can represent Jane by a blank node, and give
the blank node an exterms:emailaddress property having the URIref
mailto:jane@example.org as its value. We can also assign the blank
node an rdf:type property with a value of exterms:Person
(we will discuss types in more detail in the following sections), a
exterms:name property with a value of "Jane Smith", and any
other descriptive information we might want to provide, as shown in the
following triples:
_:jane exterms:emailaddress mailto:jane@example.org .
_:jane rdf:type exterms:Person .
_:jane exterms:name "Jane Smith" .
_:jane exterms:empID "23748"
_:jane exterms:age "26" .
This says, accurately, that "there is a resource of type Person, whose
email address is mailto:jane@example.org that's not an email address, that's a mailto
URI.whose electronic mailbox is identified by ..., whose name
is Jane Smith "Jane Smith", etc." That
is, the existence of delete "the
existence of"a blank node effectively says can be read as"there is a resource". Statements
with that blank node as subject then provide information about the
characteristics of that resource.
In practice, using blank nodes instead of URIrefs in these cases doesn't
change the way we actually handle this kind of information very much. For
example, if we know independently that an email address uniquely identifies
someone at example.org (particularly if the address is unlikely to be
reused), we can still use that fact to associate information about that
person from multiple sources, even though the email address is not the
person's URI. For example, if we were to find another piece of RDF on the web
that described a book, and gives the author's contact information as the
email address mailto:jane@example.org, we might reasonably conclude
that the author's name is Jane Smith. The point is that saying something like
"the author of the book is mailto:jane@example.org" is actually a
shorthand for "the author of the book is someone whose email address is
mailto:jane@example.org". Using a blank node to represent this
"someone" simply makes what is actually happening its not actually happening though is it.
Nothing is *happening*.Using a blank node to represent this someone
is a more accurate way to represent the real world situation.more
explicit. (Incidentally, some RDF-based schema languages allow specifying
that certain properties are unique identifiers. This is discussed further in
Section 5.5.)
2.5 Typed Literals
In the last section, we described how to handle situations in which we
needed to take property values represented by character string literals, and
break them up into structured values that identify the individual parts of
those property values. Using this approach, instead of, say, recording the
date a Web page was created as a single exterms:creation-date
property, with a single character string literal as its value, we could
represent the value as a structure consisting of the month, day, and year as
separate pieces of information. However, so far, we've followed the practice
of representing any constant values that serve as objects in RDF statements
by character string untyped literals,
even when we probably intend for the value of the property to be a number
(e.g., the value of a year or age property) or some other
kind of more specialized value.
For example, earlier in Figure 3, we illustrated an RDF graph recording
information about John Smith. In that graph, we recorded the value of John
Smith's exterms:age property as the literal "27", as shown in Figure
6:
In this case, our hypothetical organization example.org probably intends
for "27" to be interpreted as a number, rather than as the string consisting
of the character "2" followed by the character "7". However, an application
reading that literal "27" would only know how to do that if the application
was explicitly given the information that the literal "27" was intended to
represent a number, and knew which number the literal "27" was supposed to
represent. The common practice in programming languages or database systems
is to provide this kind of information by associating a datatype
with the literal, in this case, a datatype like decimal or
integer. An application that understands the datatype then knows,
for example, whether the literal "10" is intended to represent the number
ten, the number two, or the string consisting of the
character "1" followed by the character "0", depending on whether the
specified datatype is integer, binary, or string.
In RDF, typed literals are used to provide this kind of
information.
Using a typed literal, we could describe John Smith's age as being the
integer number 27 using the N-triple:
<http://www.example.org/staffid/85740> <http://www.example.org/terms/age> "27"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer> .
or, using our QName simplification for writing long URIs:
exstaff:85740 exterms:age "27"^^xsd:integer .
or as shown in Figure 7:
Similarly, in the graph shown in Figure 2 describing information about a
Web page, we recorded the value of the page's exterms:creation-date
property as the character string literal "August 16, 1999". However, using a
typed literal, we could describe the creation date of the Web page as being
the date August 16, 1999, using the triple:
ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "1999-08-16"^^xsd:date .
or as shown in Figure 8:
As these examples illustrate, an RDF typed literal is formed by explicitly
pairing a URIref identifying a particular datatype (in these examples, the
datatypes integer and date from XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2])
with a literal that the datatype uses to represent the intended value. In
each case, this results in a single node in the RDF graph with the pair as
its label.
We've used XML Schema datatypes in the two examples we've just presented,
and will be using XML Schema datatypes in most of our other examples as well
(for one thing, XML Schema data types have URIrefs we can use to refer to
them, specified in [XML-SCHEMA2]).
However, unlike typical programming languages and database systems (and
unlike the XML Schema language)delete
the bracketed bit - looks like taking a shot at xml schema,
RDF does not build in any particular collection of datatypes (not even XML
Schema datatypes). Instead, RDF typed literals simply provide a way to
explicitly indicate, for a given literal, what datatype should be used to
interpret it. As far as RDF is concerned, you can write any pair of URIref
and literal you want as a typed literal. This gives RDF the flexibility to
directly represent information coming from different sources without the need
to perform type conversions between these sources and a native set of RDF
datatypes. (Type conversions would still be required when moving information
between systems with different datatype systems, but RDF would impose no
extra conversions into and out of a native set of RDF types.)
We need to say something here about
xml schema datatypes being "first amongst equals".Users are
encourage to use XML Schema datatypes where possible as software for
processing RDF graphs using them is expected to be most widely
deployed.
We should really say something about
it being built in datatypes that software is expected to understand. We have
no way to relate URI's to user defined xml schema
datatypes.
However, this flexibility comes at a price. For one thing, RDF has no way
of knowing whether or not a URIref in a typed literal actually identifies a
datatype. Moreover, even when a URIref does identify a datatype, RDF cannot
check the validity of pairing that datatype with a particular literal. For
example, you could write the triple:
exstaff:85740 exterms:age "pumpkin"^^xsd:integer .
or the graph shown in Figure 9:
and RDF would not see anything wrong with this. No, strongly disagree. We are talking about
what an RDF procesor would do here, and an RDF processor that is datatype
aware would barf. We need to describe the different behaviour to expect
between software that understands the datatype and software that does
not. However, proper use Its an error, not just "proper
use" of typed literals clearly requires that, given a pair of
datatype URIref and literal, the literal should be a legal representation of
one of the datatype's legal values.
RDF datatype concepts borrow a conceptual framework from XML Schema
datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2]
to more precisely describe these datatype requirements. RDF's use of this
framework is defined in RDF Concepts and
Abstract Data Model [RDF-CONCEPTS].
The framework involves distinguishing between what might be written in RDF
(or program) text as a literal to represent a value, (usually a
character string of some kind), and the actual value that literal is intended
to represent or denote. For example, the literal "10" may be written
to refer to the value ten in a decimal representation, to the value
two in a binary representation, or to the string consisting of a "1"
followed by a "0". Which value the literal denotes is determined by the
datatype associated with the literal "10". In the case of numbers, the terms
numeral and number are commonly used to distinguish between
the figures that are written down (the numeral) and the value that is meant
(the number). We use this distinction when we talk about the "Roman numerals"
like "IV" that we sometimes see chiseled on buildings. We don't call these
"Roman numbers" because the Romans were using the same numbers (the number
four in this case) that we do; it's the way they wrote them down
that was different.
Specifically, RDF defines a datatype to have:
Morever, a useful datatype mapping will satisfy some other conditions:
- Each literal (member of the datatype's lexical space) is associated
with exactly one member of the datatype's value space (so that, given a
datatype and a literal, there is no ambiguity in which value is meant).
this is a must, not just
useful.
- Each member of the datatype's value space has at least one
corresponding literal in the lexical space (so we can represent all the
values associated with the data type). It has recently been pointed out that there are
schema datatypes for which this is not true. I don't think we should be
calling them useless, or at any rate, not useful.
If the datatype mapping satisfies these conditions, an RDF typed literal,
since it pairs the URIref of a datatype with a literal, will unambiguously
identify a specific member of a datatype mapping and thus a specific member
of the value space of the datatype.
For example, using these concepts, the XML Schema datatype
xsd:boolean can be described as shown in Table 1. In the datatype
mapping for this datatype, each member of the value space (represented here
as T and F) has two literal representations defined in the
lexical space.
Table 1: A Description of datatype xsd:boolean
| Value Space |
{T, F} |
| Lexical Space |
{"0", "1", "true", "false"} |
| Datatype Mapping |
{<"true", T>, <"1", T>, <"0",
F>, <"false", F>} |
Given the datatype description in Table 1, Table 2 shows the RDF typed
literals that can be used for datatype xsd:boolean and how the
datatype mapping enables a specific value to be determined for each typed
literal.
Table 2: Typed Literals for datatype xsd:boolean
| Typed Literal |
Member of Datatype Mapping
Denoted by Typed Literal |
Member of Value Space
Denoted by Typed Literal |
| <xsd:boolean, "true"> |
<"true", T> |
T |
| <xsd:boolean, "1"> |
<"1", T> |
T |
| <xsd:boolean, "false"> |
<"false", F> |
F |
| <xsd:boolean, "0"> |
<"0", F> |
F |
With this background, we can see how the interpretation of the triple
describing John Smith's age:
exstaff:85740 exterms:age "27"^^xsd:integer .
works. The triple states that John's age is the member of the value space
of the datatype xsd:integer that is represented by the literal "27".
Based on the definition of xsd:integer given in [XML-SCHEMA2],
it can be determined that John's age is the integer value
twenty-seven.
We said earlier that RDF typed literals only provide a way to explicitly
indicate the datatype that should be used to interpret a given literal, and
that RDF doesn't build in any datatypes. This means that RDF specifies
nothing about which datatypes exist, or what their value and lexical spaces,
or datatype mappings, might be. The interpretation of a typed literal
(determining the value it denotes) must be performed externally to RDF by an
application doesn't have to be an
application. I can do it. that understands that datatype.
This explains why we said earlier that RDF would be unable to see RDF is blind. It does not see. Having to
resort to this sort of language is an indication that model behind this text
is not clear. Maybe we have to introduce the notion of an rdf processor or an
rdf application. The other specs don't deal with a programming model, but I
think the primer has to. Hopefully some of the folks reading it are
programmers. anything wrong with the typed literal in the
triple:
exstaff:85740 exterms:age "pumpkin"^^xsd:integer .
or the graph shown in Figure 9. Even though "pumpkin" is not defined as
being in the lexical space of the datatype xsd:integer, for RDF to
be able to determine this requires that RDF know whether or not a particular
literal is a member of a datatype's lexical space, information RDF doesn't
have.
I continue to dislike this. Maybe I
owe you an alternative suggestion.
Unlike many programming languages, RDF has no
(well actually there is one exception, but we'll get to that later) built in
datatypes of its own. It does not define datatypes for integers, reals,
strings or dates. Instead it relies on datatypes defined
elsewhere.RDF software may process RDF
data that contains datatypes that it has not been programmed to process, in
which case there are some things the software will not be able to do. For
example, it won't be able to recognise that a particular string does
represent a legal value for that datatype, e.g. that "pumpkin" is not a valid
integer.
It is expected that the built in datatypes
defined by XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes [@@REF] will be widely used. XML
Schema datatypes have a "first amongst equals" status in RDF. They are
treated no differently to any other datatype, but they are expected to be the
most widely used and therefore the most likely to be interoperable between
different software.
There will continue to be a great deal of RDF in the Web that does not use
typed literals, since this is a relatively new facility in RDF. However, as
use of RDF develops further, the use of typed literals will develop further
as well. This para isn't adding anything
important. Delete.
@@Need to generate SVG versions for the new figures added in this (and
subsequent) sections.@@
Taken as a whole, basic RDF is relatively simple: Suggest:RDF is
simple:nodes-and-arcs diagrams interpreted as statements about
concepts or digital resources identified by URIrefs. This section has
presented an introduction to these concepts. The normative (i.e.,
definitional from the W3C's point of view) RDF specification defining these
concepts is the RDF Concepts and
Abstract Data Model [RDF-CONCEPTS], which
should be consulted for further information. Specifically, [RDF-CONCEPTS] discusses:
- the design goals behind RDF
- the meaning of RDF documents
- the definition of key RDF concepts
- the abstract graph syntax of RDF
- the handling of URIrefs within RDF
Hostage to fortune. Now you have to
keep this in sync. And what if it changes. Suggest don't be so
specific.
Together with the RDF Model Theory [RDF-MODEL], [RDF-CONCEPTS] provides the definition of the
abstract syntax for RDF, together with its formal semantics (meaning).
Additional background on the basic ideas underlying RDF, and its role in
providing a general language for describing Web information, can be found in
[WEBDATA].
However, in addition to the basic techniques for representing RDF
statements in diagrams (or triples), it should be clear that we also need a
way for people to define the vocabularies they intend to use in
those statements, including:
- defining types of things (like ex:Person)
- defining properties (like ex:age and creation-date),
and
- defining the types of things (or datatypes) that can serve as the
subjects things with datatypes can't
be subjects or objects of statements involving those
properties (like specifying that the value of an ex:age property
should always be an xsd:integer).That feels clumsy. I was thinking of
rewording, but I'd just delete this bit. Why do we need a forward
reference to schema here?
The basis for defining Schema does not define them, it describes
them.such vocabularies in RDF is RDF Schema,
which will be described in Section 4.
3. An XML Syntax for RDF: RDF/XML
To summarize what we have said already, RDFmodels statements
in terms of... RDF's conceptual model isa graph consisting
ofnodes and
arcs. The nodes describe resources that can be labeled with
URIrefs, character string literals, or are blank. The arcs connect
the nodes and are all labeled with URIrefs. This graph is more precisely
called a labeled directed graph; each arc has a direction (drawn as an arrow)
connecting two nodes. These arcs can also be described as triples of
subject node, at the blunt end of the arrow/arc, property
arc, and an object node at the sharp end of the arrow/arc. The
property arc is interpreted as an attribute, relationship or predicate of the
resource, with a value given by the object node. why are we repeating all
this?
RDF also provides an XML syntax for writing down and exchanging RDF
graphs, called RDF/XML. Unlike N-triples, which is intended as a
shorthand notation, RDF/XML is the normative syntax for writing RDF. RDF/XML
is defined in the RDF/XML
Syntax Specification [RDF-XML]. This section
describes this RDF/XML syntax.
We can illustrate the basic ideas behind the RDF/XML syntax using some of
the examples we've presented already. Suppose we want to represent one of our
initial statements:
http://www.example.org/index.html has a
creation-date whose value is August 16, 1999
The RDF graph for this single statement, after assigning a URIref to the
creation-date property, is shown in Figure 10:
with a triple representation of:
ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "August 16, 1999" .
Corresponding RDF/XML syntax for the graph in Figure 6 would be:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
4. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
5. <ex:creation-date>August 16, 1999</ex:creation-date>
6. </rdf:Description>
7. </rdf:RDF>
(we have added line numbers to use in explaining the example).
This seems like a lot of overhead. We can understand better what is going
on by considering each part of this XML in turn.
Line 1, <?xml version="1.0"?>, is the XML declaration,
which indicates that the following content is XML, and what version of XML it
is.
Line 2 begins an rdf:RDF element. This indicates that the
following XML content (starting here and ending with the
</rdf:RDF> in Line 7) is intended to represent RDF. Following
the rdf:RDF on this same line is an XML namespace declaration,
represented as an xmlns attribute of the rdf:RDF start-tag
is that the correct term for the outer
element of an xml document?. This declaration specifies that
all tags in this content prefixed with rdf: are part of the
namespace identified by the URIref
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#. This namespace is the
source for the RDF-specific terms used in RDF/XML.To much: we should assume more basic xml
knowledge.
I'm going to pass this section by and
leave it to the parser experts.
Line 3 specifies another XML namespace declaration, this time for the
prefix ex:. This is expressed as another xmlns attribute of
the rdf:RDF element, and specifies that the namespace URIref
http://www.example.org/terms/ is to be associated with the
ex: prefix. This namespace is the source for the specific terms
defined by our example organization, example.org. The ">" at the end of
line 3 indicates the end of the rdf:RDF start-tag. Lines 1-3 are
general "housekeeping" necessary to indicate that we are defining RDF/XML
content, and to identify the sources of the terms we are using.
Lines 4-6 provide the RDF/XML for the specific statement we're
representing. An obvious way to talk about any RDF statement is to say it's a
description, and that it's about the subject of the
statement (in this case, about http://www.example.org/index.html). This is
exactly it is not exact
the way the RDF/XML represents the statement. The rdf:Description
start tag in Line 4 indicates that we're starting a description, and
goes on to identify the resource the statement is about (the subject
of the statement) using the rdf:about attribute to specify the
URIref of the subject resource. Line 5 provides a property element,
with the QName <ex:creation-date> as its tag, to hold the
value August 19, 1999 of the creation-date property of the
statement. It is nested within the preceding rdf:Description
element, indicating that this property applies to the resource specified in
the containing rdf:Description element. The complete URIref of the
creation-date property corresponding to the QName
<ex:creation-date> would be obtained by replacing the
ex: prefix by the namespace URI defined for it in Line 3. Line 6
indicates the end of this particular rdf:Description element.
Finally, Line 7 indicates the end of the rdf:RDF element started
on Line 2.
This example illustrates the basic ideas used by RDF/XML to encode an RDF
graph as XML elements, attributes, element content, and attribute values. The
URIref labels for properties and object nodes are written as XML
QNames, consisting of a short prefix denoting a namespace
URI, together with a local name denoting a namespace-qualified
element or attribute, as described in Section 2.2.
The (namespace URIref, local name) pair are chosen so that concatenating them
forms the original node URIref. The URIrefs of subject nodes are stored in
XML attribute values. The nodes labeled by character string literals (which
are always object nodes) become element text content or attribute values.
We could represent an RDF graph consisting of multiple statements in
RDF/XML by using RDF/XML similar to Lines 4-6 in the previous example to
separately represent each statement. For example, if we wanted to write the
two statements:
ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "August 16, 1999" .
ex:index.html exterms:language "English" .
we could write the RDF/XML as:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
4. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
5. <ex:creation-date>August 16, 1999</ex:creation-date>
6. </rdf:Description>
7. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
8. <ex:language>English</ex:language>
9. </rdf:Description>
10. </rdf:RDF>
This is the same as our initial example, with the addition of lines 7-9, a
second rdf:Description element to represent the second statement. We
could represent an arbitrary number of additional statements in the same way,
using a separate rdf:Description element for each additional
statement. As this example illustrates, once the overhead of writing the XML
and namespace declarations is dealt with, writing each additional RDF
statement in RDF/XML is both straightforward and not too complicated.
The RDF/XML syntax provides several abbreviations to make common uses
easier to write. For example, it is typical for the same resource to be
described with several properties and values at the same time, as in the
example above. To handle this case, RDF/XML allows multiple property elements
representing those properties to be nested within the
rdf:Description element that identifies the subject resource. For
example, if we wanted to represent our previous collection of statements
about http://www.example.org/index.html:
ex:index.html dc:creator exstaff:85740 .
ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "August 16, 1999" .
ex:index.html exterms:language "English" .
whose graph (the same as Figure 2) is shown in Figure 11:
the RDF/XML syntax for the graph shown in Figure 11 could be written
as:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
4. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
6. <ex:creation-date>August 16, 1999</ex:creation-date>
7. <ex:language>English</ex:language>
8. <dc:creator>
9. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740">
10. </rdf:Description>
11. </dc:creator>
12. </rdf:Description>
13. </rdf:RDF>
(we have added line numbers again to use in explaining the example).
Compared with the previous two examples, we've added an additional
namespace declaration (in Line 3), and an additional creation-date
property element (in Lines 8-11). In addition, we've nested the three
property elements whose subject is http://www.example.org/index.html
within a single rdf:Description element identifying that subject,
rather than writing a separate rdf:Description element for each
statement.
Line 8 introduces a new form of property element content. (The element tag
also uses a different namespace prefix, the new namespace prefix dc:
we defined in Line 3.) The ex:language element in Line 7 is similar
to the ex:creation-date element we defined in the first example.
Both these elements represent properties with character strings as property
values, and such elements are specified by enclosing the character string
within start- and end-tags corresponding to the property name. However, the
dc:creator element on Line 8 represents a property whose value is
another resource, rather than a character string. If we had written
the URIref of this resource as the value of this element in the same way as
we wrote the literal values of the other elements, we would be saying that
the value of the dc:creator element was the character
string http://www.example.org/staffid/85740, rather than the
resource identified by that string interpreted as a URIref. In order to
indicate the difference, we've indicated the presence of the separate
resource by writing a nested rdf:Description element
identifying the resource as the value of the dc:creator element. In
this case, this additional resource is the subject of no properties, and so
the nested element has no further content itself.
RDF/XML provides a further abbreviation in cases like this where we have
to introduce an rdf:Description element with no further content
simply to identify a resource as a property value. Using this abbreviation,
we could change the representation of the dc:creator property as
shown below:
.
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
4. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
6. <ex:creation-date>August 16, 1999</ex:creation-date>
7. <ex:language>English</ex:language>
8. <dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740"/>
9. </rdf:Description>
10. </rdf:RDF>
In this case, in Line 8 we've written the dc:creator element with
what XML calls an empty element (it has no separate end tag), and
defined the property value using an rdf:resource attribute within
that empty element. The rdf:resource attribute indicates that its
value is another resource, identified by its URIref. Because the URIref is
being used as an attribute value, we cannot abbreviate it as a
QName, as we've done in writing element and attribute names (this is
due to the need to conform to XML syntax). Instead, we must write it out as a
full URIref.
It is important to understand that the RDF/XML in the above two examples
are abbreviations. The RDF/XML below, in which all resources are
represented with separate rdf:Description elements, and each
statement is written separately, describes exactly the same RDF graph:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
<ex:creation-date>August 16, 1999</ex:creation-date>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
<ex:language>English</ex:language>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
<dc:creator>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740">
</rdf:Description>
</dc:creator>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
We will describe some further RDF/XML abbreviations in the following
sections.
RDF/XML also allows us to represent graphs that include resources that
have no URIs, i.e., blank nodes. For example, Figure 12 (taken from
[RDF-XML]) shows a graph saying "the document
'http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar' has a title 'RDF/XML Syntax
Specification (Revised)' and has an editor, the editor has a name 'Dave
Beckett' and a home page 'http://purl.org/net/dajobe/' ".
This illustrates an idea we discussed near the end of Section 2: the use
of a blank node to represent something that does not have a URI, but can be
described in terms of other information. In this case, the blank node
represents a person, the editor of the document, and the person is described
by his name and home page.
RDF/XML provides several ways to represent blank nodes. The most direct
approach is to use an rdf:Description element in the same way as for
any other resource, but without providing an rdf:about attribute
(since a blank node has no URIref). Using this approach, RDF/XML
corresponding to Figure 12 could be written:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
4. xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar">
6. <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>
7. <ex:editor>
8. <rdf:Description>
9. <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
10. <ex:homePage rdf:resource="http://purl.org/net/dajobe/" />
11. </rdf:Description>
12. </ex:editor>
13. </rdf:Description>
14. </rdf:RDF>
Much of this XML is similar to what we have seen already. Once again we
have a property ex:editor with a resource as its value, which is
represented by the ex:editor property element (starting in Line 7)
with a nested rdf:Description element as its content. In this case,
the nested resource has its own properties, represented by the
ex:fullName and ex:homePage property elements in Lines 9
and 10. What is different is that, since the nested rdf:Description
element in Line 8 represents a blank node, it has no rdf:about
attribute specifying a URIref.
This approach is adequate provided that we don't need to refer to this
same blank node in more than one place in the RDF/XML. If we do need
to refer to the same blank node in more than one place, this won't work,
because each time we write a different rdf:Description element for a
blank node, there will be no way to determine whether this is intended to be
a new blank node, or a reference to one created already. To deal with this
problem, a blank node identifier (or bnodeID) can be
assigned to the blank node. A bnodeID serves to identify a blank node within
a particular RDF/XML document but, unlike a URIref, is unknown outside the
document in which it is assigned. A bnodeID is assigned to a blank node using
an rdf:nodeID attribute in the rdf:Description element for
the blank node. The use of a bnodeID is illustrated by the following RDF/XML,
which also represents the graph shown in Figure 12. In this example, the
bnodeID is assigned to the blank node in Line 9, and used to reference it in
Line 7.
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
4. xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar">
6. <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>
7. <ex:editor rdf:nodeID="abc"/>
8. </rdf:Description>
9. <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="abc">
10. <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
11. <ex:homePage rdf:resource="http://purl.org/net/dajobe/"/>
12. </rdf:Description>
13. </rdf:RDF>
Finally, the typed literals we described in Section 2.5 may be used as property values instead
of the character string literals we have used in the examples so far. A typed
literal is represented in RDF/XML by adding an rdf:datatype
attribute specifying a datatype URIref to the property element containing the
literal.
For example, to change the statement shown in Figure 10 to use a typed
literal instead of a character literal for the creation-date
property, the triple representation might be:
ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "1999-08-16"^^xsd:date .
and the corresponding RDF/XML syntax would be:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
4. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
5. <ex:creation-date rdf:datatype=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date">1999-08-16</ex:creation-date>
6. </rdf:Description>
7. </rdf:RDF>
In Line 5, a typed literal is given as the value of the
ex:creation-date property element by adding an rdf:datatype
attribute to the element's start-tag to specify the datatype. The value of
this attribute is the URIref of the datatype, in this case, the URIref of the
XML Schema date datatype. Since this is an attribute value, the full
URIref must be written out, rather than using the QName abbreviation
xsd:date that we used in the triple. A literal appropriate to this
datatype is then written as the element content, in this case, the literal
1999-08-16, which is the literal representation for August 16, 1999
in the XML Schema date datatype.
For the most part, we will continue to use XML-style (untyped) character
literals in our examples. However, you should be aware that typed literals
from appropriate datatypes, such as XML Schema datatypes, can always be used
instead.
A subset of the facilities we have illustrated so far is referred to as
the RDF/XML basic serialization syntax [RDF-MS]. In this approach, an RDF graph is written in
RDF/XML as follows:
- All blank nodes are assigned arbitrary URIs or blank node
identifiers.
- Each resource is listed in turn as the subject of an un-nested
rdf:Description element, using an rdf:about
attribute.
For each triple with this resource as subject, an appropriate property
element is created, with either literal content (possibly empty) or an
rdf:resource attribute specifying the object of the
triple.
The basic serialization syntax is particularly recommended for
applications in which the output RDF/XML is to be used in further RDF
processing, because it most directly represents the RDF graph.
The heading caught my eye on the way
past. This notion of defining or creating a new resource caused various
headaches in M&S. What does it mean to create a new resource? Suggest
this is better treated as a syntactic shorthand and stay clear of tricky
areas like what it means to create or define a resource.
So far, we've been describing resources that we imagine have been defined
(and given URIrefs) already. For instance, in our initial examples, we've
been providing descriptive information about example.org's web page, whose
URIref was http://www.example.org/index.html. We referred to this resource
(defined elsewhere) using an rdf:about attribute. However, obviously
we also want to be able to introduce new resources. For example,
suppose a company, example.com, wanted to provide an RDF-based catalog of its
products as an RDF/XML document, identified by (and located at)
http://www.example.com/2002/04/products. Within that resource, each product
might be given a separate RDF description. This catalog, along with one of
these descriptions (the catalog entry for a model of tent called the
"Overnighter") might be written:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.com/terms/">
4. <rdf:Description rdf:ID="10245">
5. <ex:model>Overnighter</ex:model>
6. <ex:sleeps>2</ex:sleeps>
7. <ex:weight>2.4</ex:weight>
8. <ex:packedSize>14x56</ex:packedSize>
9. </rdf:Description>
...other product descriptions...
10. </rdf:RDF>
(We've included the surrounding xml, RDF, and namespace information in
lines 1 through 3, and line 10, but this information would only need to be
defined once for the whole catalog, not repeated for each entry in the
catalog).
This is similar to our previous examples in the way it represents the
properties (model, sleeping capacity, weight) of the resource (the tent)
being described. However, in line 4, the rdf:Description element has
an rdf:ID attribute instead of an rdf:about attribute.
Using rdf:ID indicates that we are using a fragment
identifier, given by the value of the rdf:ID attribute ("10245"
in this case, which might be the catalog number used by example.com), as a
shorthand for the complete URIref of the resource we want to describe. This
fragment identifier 10245 will be interpreted relative to a base
URI, in this case, the URI of the containing catalog. The full URIref
for the tent is formed by taking the base URI (of the catalog), and appending
#10245 to it, giving the URIref
http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245.
The rdf:ID attribute is somewhat similar to the ID attribute in
XML and HTML, in that it defines a label which can be used to refer to this
resource. This label must be unique within the resource (in this case, the
catalog) in which it is defined. Any other RDF within this catalog could
refer to this resource (this particular catalog entry) by using the relative
URIref #10245 in a rdf:about attribute. This would be
understood to refer to another resource defined within the catalog. We could
also have introduced the URIref of the catalog entry itself by specifying
rdf:about="#10245" instead of rdf:ID="10245" (i.e., by
specifying the relative URIref directly). The two forms are essentially
synonyms: the full URIref formed by RDF is the same in either case:
http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245.
RDF located outside the catalog could refer to this catalog entry
by using the full URIref, i.e., by concatenating the relative URIref
#10245 of the catalog entry to the base URI of the catalog, forming
the absolute URIref http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245.
For example, an outdoor sports web site exampleRatings.com might use RDF to
provide ratings of various tents. The (5-star) rating given to the tent we
described earlier might then be represented on exampleRatings.com's web site
as:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:sportex="http://www.exampleRatings.com/terms/">
4. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245">
5. <sportex:ratingBy>Richard Roe</sportex:ratingBy>
6. <sportex:numberStars>5</sportex:numberStars>
7. </rdf:Description>
8. </rdf:RDF>
In this example, line 4 uses an rdf:Description element with an
rdf:about attribute whose value is the full URIref of the tent's
catalog entry, defined by the earlier RDF description. The use of this URIref
allows the tent being referred to in the rating to be precisely
identified.
This example not only shows how new resources can be defined in RDF/XML;
it also illustrates one of the basic architectural principles of the Web,
which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about existing
resources [BERNERS-LEE98]. The example also
illustrates the fact that the RDF describing a particular resource does not
need to be located all in one place; instead, it may be distributed
throughout the web. This is true not only for examples like this one, in
which one organization is rating or commenting on resources defined by
another, but also for situations in which the original creator of a resource
(or anyone else) wishes to amplify the description of that resource by
providing additional information about it. This may be done either by
modifying the original document in which the resource was defined, to add the
properties and values needed to describe the additional information, or, as
this example illustrates, by creating a separate document, and providing the
additional properties and values in rdf:Description elements that
refer to the original resource using rdf:about.
The previous example indicated that fragment identifiers such as
#10245 will be interpreted relative to a base URI. By
default, this base URI would be the URI of the resource in which the fragment
is used. However, in some cases it is desirable to be able to explicitly
specify this base URI. For instance, suppose that in addition to the catalog
located at http://www.example.com/2002/04/products, example.org
wanted to provide a duplicate catalog on a mirror site, say at
http://mirror.example.com/2002/04/products. This could create a
problem, since if the catalog was retrieved from the mirror site, the URIref
generated for our example tent would be
http://mirror.example.com/2002/04/products#10245, rather than
http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245, and hence apparently
a different tent. To deal with this problem, RDF/XML supports XML Base [XML-BASE], which allows an XML document to specify
a base URI other than the URI of the document itself. In this case, we would
define the catalog as:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.com/terms/"
4. xml:base="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:ID="10245">
6. <ex:model>Overnighter</ex:model>
7. <ex:sleeps>2</ex:sleeps>
8. <ex:weight>2.4</ex:weight>
9. <ex:packedSize>14x56</ex:packedSize>
10. </rdf:Description>
...other product descriptions...
11. </rdf:RDF>
The xml:base declaration in line 4 specifies that the base URI
for the content within the rdf:RDF element (until another
xml:base attribute is specified) is
http://www.example.com/2002/04/products, and all relative URIrefs
cited within that content will be interpreted relative to that base, no
matter where the actual content is located. As a result, the relative URIref
of our tent, #10245, will generate the same absolute URIref,
http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245, no matter where the
catalog is located.
So far, we've been talking about a single product description, a
particular model of tent, from example.com's catalog. However, example.com
will probably offer several different models of tents, as well as multiple
instances of other categories of products, such as backpacks, hiking boots,
and so on. This idea of instances of things that can be classified into
different kinds or categories is similar to the programming
language concept of objects having different types or
classes. RDF supports this concept by providing a predefined
property, rdf:type. When an RDF resource is defined as having an
rdf:type property, the value of that property is considered to be a
resource that defines a category or class of things, and the
original resource is considered to be an instance of that category
or class. Using rdf:type, example.com might indicate that our
product description is that of a tent as follows:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.com/terms/"
4. xml:base="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:ID="10245">
6. <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.example.com/terms/Tent" />
7. <ex:model>Overnighter</ex:model>
8. <ex:sleeps>2</ex:sleeps>
9. <ex:weight>2.4</ex:weight>
10. <ex:packedSize>14x56</ex:packedSize>
11. </rdf:Description>
...other product descriptions...
12. </rdf:RDF>
Note the use of the rdf:type property to indicate that the
instance belongs to class Tent. In this case, we imagine that
example.com has defined its classes as part of the same vocabulary that it
uses to describe its other terms (such as the property ex:weight),
so we use the absolute URIref of the class to refer to it. If example.com had
defined these classes in the product catalog itself, we could have used the
relative URIref #Tent to refer to it.
RDF itself does not define a vocabulary for defining application-specific
classes of things, like Tent in this example. Instead, such classes
would be defined in an RDF Schema. The RDF Schema vocabulary is
described in Section 5. Other vocabularies for
defining classes can also be defined, such as the DAML+OIL and
OWL languages described in Section 5.5.
In addition, RDF defines several pre-defined types of its own for various
purposes. These will be described in Section
4.
Since defining resources as instances of specific types is fairly common,
the RDF/XML syntax provides a special abbreviation for instances defined as
members of classes using the rdf:type property. In this abbrevation,
the rdf:type property and value are removed, and the
rdf:Description element name is replaced by the class name. Using
this abbreviation, example.com's tent from the example above could also be
defined as:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://www.example.com/terms/"
4. xml:base="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products">
5. <ex:Tent rdf:ID="10245">
6. <ex:model>Overnighter</ex:model>
7. <ex:sleeps>2</ex:sleeps>
8. <ex:weight>2.4</ex:weight>
9. <ex:packedSize>14x56</ex:packedSize>
10. </ex:Tent>
...other product descriptions...
11. </rdf:RDF>
Both this abbreviation and the previous description of the tent (using the
full <rdf:Description rdf:ID="10245"> element) illustrate that
RDF statements can be written in RDF/XML in a way that closely resembles the
descriptions that might have been written directly in XML. This is an
important consideration, given the increasing use of XML in all kinds of
applications, since it suggests that RDF could be used in these applications
without major changes in information structure being required, and that much
deployed XML can be interpreted as RDF statements.
We've already described a number of abbreviations that RDF/XML provides to
allow graphs to be represented more compactly. For example, we showed that
multiple property elements that describe the same resource can be nested
within the same rdf:Description element that identifies the
resource. We also showed that the name of an rdf:Description element
can be replaced by the class name of the resource. In this section, we will
briefly describe some additional RDF/XML abbreviations.
To start with, consider our tent example from Section 3.2:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.com/terms/"
xml:base="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products">
<ex:Tent rdf:ID="10245">
<ex:model>Overnighter</ex:model>
<ex:sleeps>2</ex:sleeps>
<ex:weight>2.4</ex:weight>
<ex:packedSize>14x56</ex:packedSize>
</ex:Tent>
</rdf:RDF>
One of the abbreviations allowed by RDF/XML is that when properties are
not repeated within an rdf:Description element, and the values of
those properties are literals, the properties can be written as XML
attributes of the rdf:Description element (this can't be done when
properties are repeated because XML does not allow the same
attribute to appear more than once within the same element). Using this
abbreviation, we can convert the elements in this example to attributes, and
write the description as:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.com/terms/"
xml:base="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products">
<ex:Tent rdf:ID="10245"
ex:model="Overnighter"
ex:sleeps="2"
ex:weight="2.4"
ex:packedSize="14x56"/>
</rdf:RDF>
Another abbreviation is that of nested rdf:Description
elements. We've seen some simple examples of this already. Suppose we want to
say that John Smith created our example Web page from the beginning of
Section 2, and also provide some information about John Smith himself. We
might do this with the following RDF/XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
<dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740">
<ex:name>John Smith</ex:name>
<ex:age>36</ex:age>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
This form makes it clear that two separate resources are being described,
but it is less clear that the second resource is the one referenced by the
first one. The same information could be expressed by nesting the second
description inside the dc:creator element of the first one, as in
the following RDF/XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
<dc:creator>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740">
<ex:name>John Smith</ex:name>
<ex:age>36</ex:age>
</rdf:Description>
</dc:creator>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Notice that because we're not just citing a URIref as the value of
dc:creator, but instead providing a complete
rdf:Description for the resource, we nest the description between
dc:creator start- and end-tags.
Yet another abbreviation works on these nested rdf:Description
elements, or their equivalents. When the object of a statement is another
resource (e.g., the nested description in the example above), and the values
of any properties given in-line for that resource are literals, we can write
the nested properties as additional XML attributes of the outer property
element. Applying this abbreviation to the example above gives the following
RDF/XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/index.html">
<dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740"
ex:name="John Smith"
ex:age="36" />
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Once again, remember that we are describing abbreviations. For
example, the above two examples describe exactly the same RDF graph. Some of
these abbreviations may be helpful in making RDF/XML easier for people to
read, or in enabling RDF/XML to more closely resemble certain forms of more
conventional XML.
RDF/XML also provides an abbreviation for representing blank nodes that
avoids the need to write rdf:Description elements for them. For
example, Figure 13 (which duplicates Figure 12) has a blank node as the value
of its ex:editor property:
Instead of writing a nested rdf:Description element as the value
of the ex:editor property, we can give the property element an
rdf:parseType="Resource" attribute, as shown in line 7 of the
following RDF/XML:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
4. xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar">
6. <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>
7. <ex:editor rdf:parseType="Resource">
8. <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
9. <ex:homePage rdf:resource="http://purl.org/net/dajobe/" />
10. </ex:editor>
11. </rdf:Description>
12. </rdf:RDF>
The rdf:parseType="Resource" attribute of the ex:editor
element indicates that the contents of the element are to be considered as if
they were inside a new rdf:Description element that defines a new,
unnamed resource. This new resource is the value of the ex:editor
property, corresponding to the blank node in the graph. Within the
ex:editor start and end tags (on lines 7 and 10), lines 8 and 9
define the ex:fullName and ex:homePage properties of this
new resource, respectively. The ability to use
rdf:parseType="Resource" inside elements in this way makes it easier
to write RDF/XML to represent RDF graphs that involve intermediate blank
nodes at various points.
Finally, having just introduced the notion of an rdf:parseType
(essentially an instruction to an RDF/XML parser as to how to interpret a
specific piece of RDF/XML content), there's another rdf:parseType
that should be mentioned here: rdf:parseType="Literal". Specifying
rdf:parseType="Literal" as the attribute of a property element
indicates that the content of the element should be interpreted as an XML
literal (rather than as RDF or some other kind of literal). For example, the
following RDF/XML describes a single RDF triple with the subject URIref
http://example.org/thingy, the predicate ex:prop, and an
object consisting of the XML content in Lines 7-10 including the
a:Collection tags:
1. <?xml version="1.0"?>
2. <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
3. xmlns:ex="http://example.org/stuff/1.0/">
5. <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/thingy>
6. <ex:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" xmlns:a="tttp://example.org/a#>
7. <a:Collection required="true">
8. <a:widget size="10" />
9. <a:grommit id="23" />
10. </a:Collection>
11. </ex:prop>
12. </rdf:Description>
12. </rdf:RDF>
Using rdf:parseType="Literal" allows XML content to be included
in RDF descriptions.
Seems like heavy overlap with section
2 of the syntax doc. Do we need both. DaveB: were you aware this existed when
you wrote section 2?
The examples above have illustrated some of the basic ideas behind the
RDF/XML syntax. For a discussion of the basic principles behind the modeling
of RDF statements in XML (known as striping), and other details and
examples about writing RDF in XML, refer to the RDF/XML Syntax
Specification [RDF-XML].
4. Other RDF
Capabilities
RDF provides a number of additional capabilities, including some built-in
types and properties for representing groups of resources and RDF statements,
and capabilities for deploying RDF information in the World Wide Web. These
additional capabilities are described in the following sections.
There is often a need to represent groups of things. For example,
we might want to say that a book was created by several authors, or to list
the students in a course, or the software modules in a package. RDF provides
several pre-defined types and properties that can be used to construct RDF
graphs to represent various kinds of groups.
First, RDF provides three predefined types (together with some associated
predefined properties) for representing containers: A container is a resource that contains
things. The contained things are called members. Members may be
resources or literal.Three types of
container are defined:
A Bag (a resource having type rdf:Bag) is intended to
represent It does not represent. It is
an unordered container.A bag is a container where the order
of the members is not significant. an unordered group of
resources or literals, possibly including duplicates. A Bag is used to
represent a group that has multiple values, and there is no significance to
the order in which the values are given. For example, a Bag might be used to
represent a group of part numbers in which the order of entry or processing
of the part numbers does not matter.
A Sequence or Seq (a resource having type
rdf:Seq) is intended to represent an ordered group of
resources or literals, possibly including duplicates. A Sequence is used to
represent a group that has multiple values, and the order of the values is
significant. For example, a Sequence might be used to represent a group that
must be maintained in alphabetical order.
An Alternative or Alt (a resource having type
rdf:Alt) is intended to represent a group of resources or literals
that represent alternative values (typically for a single value of a
property). For example, an Alt might be used to specify alternative language
translations for the title of a book, or to provide a list of alternative
Internet sites at which a resource might be found. An application using a
property whose value is an Alt group should be aware that it can choose any
one of the items in the group as appropriate.
To represent a specific instance of one of these types of containers, you
create a new resource, and give it an rdf:type property whose value
is one of the pre-defined resources rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, or
rdf:Alt (whichever is appropriate). This new container resource
represents the group as a whole, and may either be a blank node or be given a
URIref. The members of the container are then indicated by defining a
membership property for each member with the new container resource
as its subject and the member resource as its object. These membership
properties have names of the form rdf:_n, where n
is an integer, e.g., rdf:_1, rdf_2, rdf_3, and so
on, and are used specifically for defining the members of containers.
Container resources may also have other properties that describe the
container, in addition to the membership properties and the rdf:type
property.
It is important to understand that while these types of containers are
represented by pre-defined RDF types and properties, the special meanings
described above for rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, and rdf:Alt
containers, e.g., that the members of an Alt container are alternative
values, are only intended meanings, provided with the aim of
establishing a shared convention among those using these containers. All RDF
does is provide the types and properties that can be used to construct the
RDF graphs described here for each type of container. Hence, applications
must be written to behave according to the particular meaning involved for
each container type. This point will be expanded on in the following
examples.
A typical use of a container is to represent the value of a property. For
example, to represent the sentence "The students in course 6.001 are Amy,
Tim, John, Mary, and Sue", you could create a Bag resource containing the
students, and use this Bag as the value of the course's s:students
property, writing the RDF/XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:s="http://example.edu/students/vocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001">
<s:students>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Mary"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Sue"/>
</rdf:Bag>
</s:students>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
This RDF/XML would result in the RDF graph shown in Figure 14:
Note that in RDF/XML you can use li as a convenience element to
avoid having to explicitly number each membership property. The numbered
properties rdf:_1, rdf:_2, and so on are generated from the
li elements in forming the corresponding graph. The element name
li was chosen to be mnemonic with the term "list item" from HTML.
Since the value of the s:students property in this example is
expressed as a Bag, there is no intended significance in the order given for
the URIrefs of each student, even though the properties in the graph have
integers in their names. It is up to applications creating and processing
rdf:Bag containers to ignore any (apparent) order in the
properties.
The RDF/XML for an rdf:Seq container, and the corresponding graph
structure, are similar to those for an rdf:Bag (the only difference
is in the type, rdf:Seq). Once again, although an rdf:Seq
container is intended to represent a sequence, it is up to applications
creating and processing the structure to appropriately interpret the sequence
of integer-valued property names.
As an illustration of an Alt container, the sentence "The source code for
X11 may be found at ftp.example.org, ftp.example1.org, or ftp.example2.org"
could be written in RDF/XML as:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:s="http://example.org/packages/vocab#">
<rdf:RDF>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/packages/X11">
<s:DistributionSite>
<rdf:Alt>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="ftp://ftp.example.org"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="ftp://ftp.example1.org"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="ftp://ftp.example2.org"/>
</rdf:Alt>
</s:DistributionSite>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
This would result in the RDF graph shown in Figure 15:
An Alt container is intended mustto have at least one
member, identified by the property rdf:_1. This member is intended
to be considered as the default or preferred value. Other than the member
identified as rdf:_1, the order of the remaining elements is not
intended to be significant.
The RDF in Figure 15 as written states simply that the value of
the s:DistributionSite site property is the Alt container resource
itself. Any additional meaning that is to be read into this graph, e.g., that
one of the members of the Alt container is to be considered as the
value of the s:DistributionSite site property, or that
ftp://ftp.example.org is the default or preferred value, must be
built into an application's understanding of how an Alt is intended to
behave, and/or into the meaning defined for the particular property
(s:DistributionSite in this case), which also must be understood by
the application.
Alt containers are frequently used in conjunction with language tagging.
For example, a work whose title has been translated into several languages
might have its Title property pointing to an Alt container holding
each of the language variants.
The distinction between the intended meanings of a Bag and an Alt can be
further illustrated by considering the authorship of the book "Huckleberry
Finn". The book has exactly one author, but the author has two names (Mark
Twain and Samuel Clemens). Either name is sufficient to specify the author.
Thus using an Alt container of the author's names more accurately represents
the relationship than using a Bag (which might suggest there are two
different authors).
The built-in types and properties provided for defining containers can be
used with any resource, and not necessarily in the "well-formed" combinations
illustrated so far. For example, the numeric membership properties
rdf:_n can be written directly rather than using the
RDF/XML rdf:li property. If they are, RDF does not insist that the
property numbers be contiguous starting with rdf:_1. Hence, you
could create a legal Bag with just the membership properties rdf:_3,
rdf:_7, rdf:_8, and rdf:_11. No. The bag has all the properties. What we allowed
was partial descriptions of a container.
Also, you could give a resource representing a particular employee an
rdf:type property of rdf:Alt, stating that the employee was
an Alt, without defining any membership properties at t I can't
parse this. employee an rdf:_2 property having some
value, without explicitly defining the employee as one of the container
types. Again, RDF would see nothing wrong with this.
You can also define duplicate member properties. For example, the
following is syntactically legal RDF:
WHAT? Do you
really want to get into this. This example says that Amy, Tim and John are
all the same person. Please remove.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:s="http://example.edu/students/vocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001">
<s:students>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
</rdf:Bag>
</s:students>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Finally, there is no built-in understanding that the member resources
defined for a given container, such as the three students defined as the
members of the Bag above, are the only members of that container
(since a container resource may not be a blank node What have blank nodes to do with it. Did you
mispeak here?, RDF located elsewhere might define additional
members of the same container).
Users are also free to choose their own representations for groups of
resources, rather than using the ones described here. These RDF containers
are merely provided as common definitions that, if generally used, could help
make data involving groups of resources more interoperable.
Sometimes there are clear alternatives to using these RDF container types.
For example, a relationship between a particular resource and a group of
other resources could be indicated by making the first resource the subject
of multiple statements using the same property. This is structurally not the
same as the resource being the subject of a single statement whose object is
a container containing multiple members. In some cases, these two structures
may have equivalent meaning, but in other cases they may not. The choice of
which to use in a given situation should be made with this in mind.
Consider as an example the relationship between a writer and her
publications. We might have the sentence:
Sue has written "Anthology of Time", "Zoological Reasoning", and
"Gravitational Reflections".
In this case, there are three resources each of which was written
independently by the same writer. This could be expressed using repeated
properties as:
exstaff:Sue ex:publication ex:AnthologyOfTime .
exstaff:Sue ex:publication ex:ZoologicalReasoning .
exstaff:Sue ex:publication ex:GravitationalReflections .
In this example there is no stated relationship between the publications
other than that they were written by the same person. Each of the statements
is an independent fact, and so using repeated properties would be a
reasonable choice. However, this could just as reasonably be represented as a
statement about the group of resources written by Sue:
exstaff:Sue ex:publication _:z
_:z rdf:type rdf:Bag .
_:z rdf:_1 ex:AnthologyOfTime .
_:z rdf:_2 ex:ZoologicalReasoning .
_:z rdf:_3 ex:GravitationalReflections .
On the other hand, the sentence:
The resolution was approved by the Rules Committee, whose members are
Fred, Wilma, and Dino.
says that the committee as a whole approved the resolution; it does not
necessarily state that each committee member individually voted in favor of
the resolution. In this case, it would be potentially misleading to model
this sentence as three separate ex:approvedBy statements, one for
each committee member, as shown below:
ex:resolution ex:approvedBy ex:Fred .
ex:resolution ex:approvedBy ex:Wilma .
ex:resolution ex:approvedBy ex:Dino .
since these statements say that each member individually approved the
resolution.
In this case, it would be better to model the sentence as a single
ex:approvedBy statement whose subject is the resolution and whose
object is a separate resource representing the entire committee. The resource
representing the committee could then be a Bag containing the committee
members' resources, as in the following:
ex:resolution ex:approvedBy _:z
_:z rdf:type rdf:Bag .
_:z rdf:_1 ex:Fred .
_:z rdf:_2 ex:Wilma .
_:z rdf:_3 ex:Dino .
Alternatively, the resource representing the committee could be a non-Bag
resource. Why is this
here?This resource could, for example, have a
ex:member property with the Bag of members as its value, or separate
ex:member properties for each member (since each person is
individually a member of the committee. even if each person did not
individually approve the resolution), as shown in the triples:
ex:resolution ex:approvedBy ex:rulesCommittee .
ex:rulesCommittee ex:member ex:Fred .
ex:rulesCommittee ex:member ex:Wilma .
ex:rulesCommittee ex:member ex:Dino .
This illustrates that the built-in RDF containers may not be chosen in all
cases.
I suggest separate subheads for
containers and collections
In addition to the container types we've just described, RDF/XML provides
another way to represent unordered groups of things, as lists. Should call these
collections for consistency across docs. The concept is a closed collection
implemented as a list.A list
is created from an element containing a collection of nested elements by
giving the containing element the
attributerdf:parseType="Collection". Whenever no: only property elements an
element has the rdf:parseType="Collection" attribute, the value
elements don't have
values of the element is the collection of elements given
inside, and the enclosed elements will be used What is using it?
This being described from a syntax centric point of view. Should describe the
graph first, then show how to write it down.to create
a Lisp-like list structure in the RDF graph, constructed using the predefined
type rdf:List, the predefined properties rdf:first and
rdf:rest, and the predefined resource rdf:nil.
Collections
A limitation of containers is that there is
no way to close them, no way to say "these are all the members of the
container". Whilst one graph may describe some of the members, there is no
way to exclude the possibility that there is another graph somewhere that
describes more.
Sometimes it is useful to be sure that there
are no other members of a group than those in the graph. RDF Collections
allow this.
@@DIAGRAM HERE
An RDF collection is represented by a list
structure of resources as shown above. For each member of the collection
there is a resource of type List. That element is like to the member
of the collection by an rdf:first property and to the next list
resource by an rdf:next property. The end of a list is represented
by the resource rdf:nil. This structure will be familiar to those
who know Lisp.
The RDF/XML syntax has a special notation to
make it easier to write down collections. The graph above can be written in
RDF/XML as:
To illustrate how this works, the RDF/XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:s="http://example.edu/students/vocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.edu/courses/6.001">
<s:students rdf:parseType="Collection" >
<s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Amy"/>
<s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/Tim"/>
<s:student rdf:resource="http://example.edu/students/John"/>
</s:students>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
would result in the RDF graph (also known as a "consed-pair" construction)
shown in Figure 16:
The rdf:first and rdf:rest properties allows
applications to "walk" the structure. RDF defines no particular meaning for
this structure; it is up to applications to interpret it.
RDF applications sometimes need to make statements about
statements, for instance, to record information about when a statement
was made, who made it, or other similar information. For example, consider a
statement about the tent we discussed in Section 3:
product 10245 has a weight whose value
is 2.4
with a triple representation of:
exproducts:10245 exterms:weight "2.4" .
Now, suppose we wanted to say in RDF that this statement was made by John
Smith. Since in RDF we can only make statements about resources,
what we would like to be able to do is write something like:
[exproducts:10245 exterms:weight "2.4" .] dc:creator exstaff:85740 .
That is, we want to be able to turn the original statement into a
resource, so that we can make it the subject of another RDF statement that
talks about it. RDF provides a built-in vocabulary for modeling statements as
resources. This modeling is called reification in RDF, and a model
of a statement is called a reified statement. No. The reification quad is called the
reification of the statement. The reified statement is the resource which is
the statement.
The RDF reification vocabulary consists of the type
rdf:Statement, and the properties rdf:subject,
rdf:predicate, and rdf:object. In this vocabulary, a triple
of the form:
foo rdf:type rdf:Statement .
is a statement that the resource foo is an RDF triple in some RDF
document. The three properties rdf:subject, rdf:predicate,
and rdf:object, when applied to foo, then specify the
subject, predicate, and object components of that triple foo.
Using this vocabulary, a reification of our original triple:
exproducts:10245 exterms:weight "2.4" .
is given by the graph:
_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:xxx rdf:subject exproducts:10245 .
_:xxx rdf:predicate exterms:weight .
_:xxx rdf:object "2.4" .
(The node that is intended to refer to the first triple, the blank node
_:xxx in the reification, could be either a blank node or a
URIref.)
The intended interpretation of a reification like this is that
_:xxx should be understood as referring to the original triple (as a
whole), which is described by the subject, predicate, and object triples in
the reification. So, using the reification, we would express the fact that
the original statement was made by John Smith using the graph:
_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:xxx rdf:subject exproducts:10245 .
_:xxx rdf:predicate exterms:weight .
_:xxx rdf:object "2.4" .
_:xxx dc:creator exstaff:85740 .
Note that the intended interpretation is that the triple that
_:xxx refers to is a particular instance of a triple in a
particular RDF document, rather than some arbitrary triple having the same
subject, predicate, and object. There could be several such triples that have
the same subject, predicate and object properties. Although a graph is
defined as a set of triples, several instances with the same triple structure
might occur in different documents. Thus, without this understanding, it
would be meaningful to claim that _:xxx does not refer to the triple
in the first graph, but to some other triple with the same structure. This
particular interpretation of reification is used because reification is
intended to be used to express properties such as dates of composition and
source information, as in our example, and these properties need to be
applied to specific instances of triples.
Note also that the assertion of the reified statement is not the same as
the assertion of the original statement, and neither implies the other. That
is, when someone asserts that John said foo, they are not asserting foo
themselves, just that John said it. Conversely, when someone asserts foo,
they are not also asserting its reification, since by asserting foo they are
not also saying that there are such things as statements that they intend to
talk about.
We have referred to the intended interpretation of reification in
the discussion above because, while this may be the interpretation that is
generally intended when reification is used, RDF reification does not
actually capture all this meaning. Specifically, RDF syntax by itself
provides no way to "connect" an RDF triple to its reification. All that the
graph:
_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:xxx rdf:subject exproducts:10245 .
_:xxx rdf:predicate exterms:weight .
_:xxx rdf:object "2.4" .
_:xxx dc:creator exstaff:85740 .
actually says is, "there is a statement that has a subject
exproducts:10245, a predicate exterms:weight, and an object
2.4, and John made it". It does not say that that statement
(referred to by _:xxx) is the same as some particular statement in
some particular RDF document.Are you
saying what you mean here. The nature of b-nodes is sufficient to account for
what is said here. Are you trying to say more, i.e. the statement/statings
distinction?
This does not mean that such "provenance" information cannot be expressed
in RDF, just that it cannot be done using only the meaning RDF associates
with the reification vocabulary. For example, if an RDF document (say, a Web
page) has a URI, you could make statements about the resource identified by
that URI and, based on some application-dependent understanding of how those
statements should be interpreted, act as if those statements "distribute"
over (apply equally to) all the statements in the document. Also, if some
mechanism exists (outside of RDF) to assign URIs to individual RDF
statements, then you could certainly make statements about those individual
statements, using their URIs to identify them. In these cases, you would not
need to use the reification vocabulary at all. In addition, you could use the
reification vocabulary directly according to the intended interpretation
described above, and have an application-dependent understanding as to how to
associate specific triples with their intended reifications. However, other
applications receiving this RDF would not necessarily share this
application-dependent understanding, and thus would not necessarily interpret
the graphs appropriately.
I can't figure out what this
paragraph is trying to say.
Finally, since the relation between triples and reifications of triples in
any RDF graph or graphs need not be one-to-one, asserting a property about
some resource described by a reification does not necessarily mean that the
same property holds of another such resource, even if it has the same
components. For example, given the following graph:
_:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:xxx rdf:subject exproducts:10245 .
_:xxx rdf:predicate exterms:weight .
_:xxx rdf:object "2.4" .
_:yyy rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:yyy rdf:subject exproducts:10245 .
_:yyy rdf:predicate exterms:weight .
_:yyy rdf:object "2.4" .
_:xxx ex:height "38" .
it does not follow that: A more
realistic example is needed. I don't know of any sense of height that might
reasonably apply to an rdf:Statement.
In addition to the RDF capabilities we've already described, RDF provides
a number of other miscellaneous facilities. We cover these facilities in this
section, along with some other topics which don't fit naturally into the
other sections.
In Section 2.4, we noted that the RDF
data model intrinsically supports only binary relations; that is, a
statement specifies a relation between two resources. For example, the
statement:
exstaff:85740 exterms:manager exstaff:62345 .
states that the relation "manager" holds between two employees (presumably
one manages the other).
However, in some cases we need to be able to represent information
involving higher arity relations (relations between more than two resources)
in RDF. We discussed one example of this in Section 2.4, where the problem
was to represent the relationship between John Smith and his address
information, and the value of John's address was a structured value of his
street, city, state, and Zip. If we had tried to write this as a relation,
we'd have seen that address was 5-ary relation of the form:
address(exstaff:85740, "1501 Grant Avenue", "Bedford",
"Massachusetts", "01730")
We indicated that we can represent such structured information in RDF by
considering the aggregate thing we want to talk about (here, the collection
of components representing John's address) as a separate resource, and then
making separate statements about that new resource, as in the triples:
exstaff:85740 exterms:address _:johnaddress .
_:johnaddress exterms:street "1501 Grant Avenue" .
_:johnaddress exterms:city "Bedford" .
_:johnaddress exterms:state "Massachusetts" .
_:johnaddress exterms:Zip "01730" .
(where _:johnaddress is the node identifier of the blank node
resource representing John's address.)This has already been covered. Is it necessary
to repleat it? Provide a hyperlink?
This is a general way to represent any n-ary relation in RDF: you select
one of the participants (John in this case) to serve as the subject of the
main relation (address in this case). You then specify an
intermediate resource to represent the rest of the relation (either with or
without assigning it a URI), and then give that new resource properties
representing the remaining components of the relation.
In the case of John's address, none of the individual parts of the
structured value could be considered the "primary" value of the
exterms:address property; all of the parts contribute equally to the
value. However, in some cases one of the parts of the structured value is
often thought of as the "primary" value, with the other parts of the relation
providing additional contextual or other information that qualifies the
primary value. For example, in our tent example in Section 3, we gave the
weight of the particular tent we were describing as "2.4", i.e.,
exproduct:10245 ex:weight "2.4" .
In fact, a more complete description of the weight would have been "2.4
kilograms" rather than just "2.4". To state this, the value of the
ex:weight property would need to have two components, the literal
"2.4" and an indication of the unit of measure (kilograms). In this situation
the literal "2.4" could be considered the "primary" value of the
ex:weight property, because frequently the value would be recorded
simply as the value "2.4" (as we did in the triple above), relying on an
understanding of the context to fill in the unstated units information.
In the RDF model a qualified property value of this kind is considered as
simply another kind of structured value. To represent this, we create a new
resource to represent the structured value as a whole (the weight, in this
case), and to serve as the object of the original statement. We then give
that new resource properties representing the individual parts of the
structured value. In this case, we need a property for the literal "2.4", and
a property for the unit "kilograms". RDF provides a pre-defined
rdf:value property to denote the primary value (if there is one) of
a structured value. So in this case, we would give the literal "2.4" as the
value of the rdf:value property, and assign the resource
exunits:kilograms as the value of an exterms:units property
(assuming the resource exunits:kilograms is defined in a example.org
schema with the URIref http://www.example.org/units/kilograms). The
resulting triples would be:
exproduct:10245 ex:weight _:weight10245 .
_:weight10245 rdf:value "2.4" .
_:weight10245 ex:units exunits:kilograms .
which can be exchanged using the RDF/XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.com/2002/04/products#10245">
<ex:weight rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdf:value>2.4</rdf:value>
<ex:units rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/units/kilograms" />
</ex:weight>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
The same approach can be used to represent quantities using any units of
measure.
Note that two namespace declarations exist for the same namespace in this
example. This is frequently needed when default namespaces are declared so
that attributes that do not come from the namespace of the element may be
specified, as is the case with the rdf:value attribute in the
ex:weight element above. this
is a syntax point. strange to find it here. and the default namespace is not
used in the examples.
We can use this same approach (and rdf:value) in representing
information from different classification schemes or rating systems. For
example, consider one of John Smith's 1997 articles, with the subject:
"Library Science". We could use the Dewey Decimal Code for "Library Science"
to classify the article. However, the Dewey Decimal system is not the only
subject classification scheme, so we might want to explicitly state which
scheme we're using. This means using another structured value, consisting of
the subject code and the classification scheme. As before, we define a new
resource to represent the structured value and to serve as the value of the
book's dc:subject property. This new resource gets an
rdf:value property to define the subject code value, and an
additional property that identifies the classification scheme. The resulting
graph might look like:
ex:Jan97 dc:subject _:category .
_:category rdf:value "020 - Library Science" .
_:category ex:classification "Dewey Decimal Code" .
which could be exchanged as:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/Jan97.html">
<dc:subject
rdf:value="020 - Library Science"
ex:classification="Dewey Decimal Code"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
You need not use rdf:value in these situations, and RDF does not
associate any particular meaning with it. rdf:value is simply
provided as a convenience for use in these commonly-occurring situations.
I don't see the value of this second
example. It seems to say nothing new.
In many cases where rdf:value might be used, typed literals could
also be used. For example, to represent the fact that the weight of the tent
in our earlier example was given in kilograms, example.org might have defined
a datatype to represent "weight in kilograms". In that case, the weight of
the tent could be represented by giving the value of the tent's
ex:weight property as a typed literal using this datatype.I can't think of
a reason why a datatype representing weight in kilograms is wrong, but surely
there must be one? I don't think we want to encourage this sort of thing at
all. Suggest delete.
RDF does not define any built-in values, such as TRUE and
FALSE, for use as values of Boolean-valued properties, and
suggestions have been made that such values be provided. However, RDF already
allows this kind of information to be modeled, just in a different way. For
example, suppose we wanted to represent statements about whether various
members of example.org's staff love chocolate or not:
This is not really a new facility.
This is a hint at how to use RDF. A guide to modeling style. Maybe have a
section for that. How does this section sit now that we have datatypes, where
schema datatypes does define values for true and false.
exstaff:85740 exterms:chocolateLover ex:true .
exstaff:38237 exterms:chocolateLover ex:false .
One approach would be to use RDF typed literals to represent the values of
such properties, using datatypes from some "well-known" datatype system. For
example, we could use the XML Schema datatype xsd:boolean described
in Section 2.5, and represent these statements
as: Ah!
exstaff:85740 exterms:chocolateLover "true"^^xsd:boolean .
exstaff:38237 exterms:chocolateLover "false"^^xsd:boolean .
A second approach would be to represent the same information by describing
the staff members as being members of different types or classes, using
rdf:type, as in:
exstaff:85740 rdf:type exterms:chocolateLover .
exstaff:38237 rdf:type exterms:chocolateHater .
The basic idea is that a Boolean-valued property can be associated with a
type or class (see Section 5 for a description of how classes may be defined
in RDF Schema), and saying that a resource is a member of a type corresponds
to saying that some property (associated with the type definition) is true of
that resource. So in this case, we've used the types
exterms:chocolateLover and exterms:chocolateHater to denote
the types of resources for which the property exterms:chocolateLover
is, respectively, true and false.
It should be noted that, to more closely reflect what we are trying to
represent in this second approach, we would also need to indicate that
exterms:chocolateLover and exterms:chocolateHater are
disjoint classes, i.e., that someone must be either a
chocolate lover or a chocolate hater, but not both. As we will see, RDF
Schema defines no built-in mechanism for expressing this disjointness.
However, other RDF-based languages, such as DAML+OIL [DAML+OIL] and OWL [OWL], do
define such mechanisms.
Now that we have datatypes, I think I
would drop this section.
A number of the earliest examples used in this Primer involved using RDF
to express information about HTML Web pages (specifically, the creator,
creation-date, and language of the hypothetical Web page
http://www.example.org/index.html). A natural way to want to provide
the RDF that describes a page to a client application is to embed the RDF in
the HTML page itself. However, while there has been much discussion of this
subject, there is no general mechanism for embedding RDF in HTML that is
satisfactory for all purposes.
An approach suggested in [RDF-MS] was to simply
embed RDF/XML directly in the body of an HTML page. This can be done using
RDF/XML abbreviation syntax. For example, the RDF:
<rdf:RDF>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org">
<ex:publisher>World Wide Web Consortium</ex:publisher>
<ex:title>W3C Home Page</ex:title>
<ex:date>1998-10-03T02:27</ex:date>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
can also be written, using attributes instead of elements, as:
<rdf:RDF>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org"
ex:publisher="World Wide Web Consortium"
ex:title="W3C Home Page"
ex:date="1998-10-03T02:27"/>
</rdf:RDF>
If these two expressions were embedded into an HTML document, the default
behavior of a non-RDF-aware browser would be to display the values of the
properties in the first example, while in the second example there should be
no text displayed (or at most some whitespace). This suggests that we could
use the second example to transparently embed this RDF in the HTML document.
However, while this illustrates one potential use of RDF/XML abbreviations,
not all RDF/XML can be encoded using attributes in this way, and the results
are somewhat browser-specific.
With the advent of XHTML, the approach described above only involves
mixing XML dialects, since both the page and the RDF/XML are XML. However,
the result won't validate, the results are still browser-specific. Still
another approach is to put the RDF in the head of the HTML (or
XHTML) document, since this is intended to be where metadata about the
document is supposed to go. However, information in the head is
supposed to describe the containing document, and RDF may be about
anything.
The most general approach for associating RDF with HTML is to include a
link to a separate RDF file in the page, rather than directly embedding the
RDF. While this approach is sometimes criticized, other page content such as
images, stylesheets, etc. is already linked in this way, and following these
links can be no more trouble for an application than extracting embedded RDF
from the surrounding content. The linking approach has been used for RDF
describing this Primer (the link can be found at the end of the Primer).
A more complete discussion of this subject, which describes these
alternatives in detail, together with a number of other approaches, is
provided in [RDFINHTML].
5. Defining RDF Vocabularies: RDF
Schema
@@This section currently does not include a discussion of rdfs:Datatype,
and the declaration of specific datatypes in schemas, pending synchronization
with the Schema specification.@@
RDF provides a way to express simple statements about resources, using
named properties and values. However, RDF user communities also need the
ability to indicate that they are describing specific kinds or classes of
resources, and will use specific properties in describing those resources.
For example, the company example.com from our examples in Section 3 would
want to define classes such as ex:Tent, and properties such as
ex:model, ex:weightInKg, and ex:packedSize to
describe them (we use QNames with various "example" namespace prefixes as the
names of classes and properties here as a reminder that in RDF these names
are actually URI references, as discussed in Section 2). Similarly,
people interested in describing bibliographic resources would want to define
classes such as ex2:Book or ex2:MagazineArticle, and define
properties such as ex2:author, ex2:title, and
ex2:subject to describe them. Other applications might need to
define classes such as ex3:Person and ex3:Company, and
properties such as ex3:age, ex3:jobTitle,
ex3:stockSymbol, and ex3:numberOfEmployees. RDF itself
provides no vocabulary for specifying these things. Instead, such classes and
properties are defined as an RDF vocabulary. The facilities for
defining describing RDF vocabularies are
specified in RDF Vocabulary
Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema [RDFSCHEMA].
RDF Schema does not provide a specific vocabulary of application-oriented
classes like ex:Tent, ex2:Book, or ex3:Person, and
properties like ex:weightInKg, ex2:author or
ex3:JobTitle. Instead, it provides the mechanisms needed to
specify describe such
classes and properties as part of a vocabulary, and to indicate which classes
and properties are expected to be used together (for example, you might
expect the property ex3:jobTitle to be used in the description of
aan ex3:Person). In other words,
RDF Schema provides a basic delete
"basic" type system for use in RDF models .. for RDF. The RDF Schema type system is
similar in some respects to the type systems of object-oriented programming
languages such as Java. For example, RDF Schema allows resources to be
defined as instances of one or more classes. In addition, it allows
classes to be organized in a hierarchical fashion; for example a class
ex:Dog might be defined as a subclass of ex:Mammal which is
a subclass of ex:Animal, meaning that any resource which is in class
ex:Dog is also considered to be in class ex:Animal.
However, RDF classes and properties are in some respects very different from
programming language types. RDF class and property definitions do not create
a straightjacket into which information must be forced, but instead provide
additional information about the RDF resources they describe. This
information can be used in a variety of ways. We will say more about this
point in Section 5.3. I think you should say it
here.
RDF Schema uses RDF itself to specify the RDF type system, by providing a
set of pre-defined RDF resources and properties, together with their
meanings, that can be used to definedescribe
I'm going to stop pointing these out from here on.
user-specific classes and properties. These additional RDF Schema resources
extend RDF to include a larger reserved vocabulary with additional meaning.
The RDF Schema (RDFS) vocabulary is defined in a namespace identified by the
URI reference http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" (in the
examples, we will use the prefix rdfs: to refer to this namespace).
We will illustrate RDF Schema's basic resources and propertiesvocabulary in the following sections.
A basic step in any kind of description process is identifying the various
kinds of things to be described. RDF Schema refers to these "kinds of things"
as classes. A class in RDF Schema corresponds to the
generic concept of a Type or Category, somewhat like the
notion of a class in object-oriented programming languages such as Java. RDF
classes can be defined to represent almost anything No. There can rdf classes of almost anything,
but they are classes, not the instances. Suggest... for almost any
category of thing , such
as web pages, people, document types, databases or abstract concepts. Classes
are defined using the RDFS-defined resourcesrdfs:Class
and rdfs:Resource, and the properties rdf:type and
rdfs:subClassOf.
For example, suppose we wanted to use RDF to provide information about
different kinds of motor vehicles. In RDF Schema, we would first define a
class called xyz:MotorVehicle (using xyz: to stand for the
namespace we will use in this example).why switch. eg: was just fine.
A class represents the collection of resources that belong to the class,
called its instances. In this case, we intend the class
xyz:MotorVehicle to represent the collection of resources that we
intend to represent the members of the
class are not resources that represent motor vehicles, they are motor
vehicles.motor vehicles.
A venn diagram would be good
here.
In RDF Schema, a class is any resource having an
rdf:type property whose value is the RDFS-defined resource
rdfs:Class. So a new class, such as xyz:MotorVehicle, is
defined by creating an RDF resource to represent the new class, and giving it
an rdf:type property whose value is the RDFS-defined resource
rdfs:Class. (The resource rdfs:Class itself has an
rdf:type of rdfs:Class.)
As we've already seen, the property rdf:type is used to indicate
that a resource is an instance of a class. In our example, if we wanted to
define a resource, say xyz:companyCar, to represent a particular
motor vehicle, we would define the resource xyz:companyCar with an
rdf:type property whose value is xyz:MotorVehicle,
indicating that xyz:companyCar is an instance of the class resource
we've just defined. A resource may be an instance of more than one class.
After defining class xyz:MotorVehicle, we might want to define
additional classes representing various specialized kinds of motor vehicle,
e.g., passenger vehicles, vans, minivans, and so on. We can define these
classes in the same way as we defined class xyz:MotorVehicle, by
defining a resource to represent each new class, and giving it an
rdf:type property whose value is rdfs:Class. However, we
want to do more than just define the separate classes; we also want to
indicate their special relationship to class xyz:MotorVehicle, i.e.,
that they are specialized kinds of MotorVehicle. To do this, we use
the RDFS concept of subclass.
An RDF subclass represents a subset/superset relationship between two
classes. We define this relationship using the pre-defined
rdfs:subClassOf property to relate the two classes. For example, to
state that xyz:Van is a subclass of xyz:MotorVehicle, we
would define the class xyz:Van, and give it an
rdfs:subClassOf property whose value is the (class) resource
xyz:MotorVehicle. The meaning of this subclass relationship is that
if xyz:Van is a subclass of xyz:MotorVehicle, and resource
xyz:mycar is an instance of xyz:Van, then
xyz:mycar is also implicitly considered an instance of
xyz:Motorvehicle (that is, you can "infer" or act as if
xyz:mycar is an instance of xyz:MotorVehicle even if this
is not explicitly stated).
The
rdfs:subClassOf property is
transitive. This means, for
example, that if class
xyz:MiniVan is a subclass of class
xyz:Van, and
xyz:Van is a subclass of
xyz:Motorvehicle, then
xyz:MiniVan is also implicitly a
subclass of
xyz:Motorvehicle. As a result, resources that are
instances of class
xyz:MiniVan are also considered instances of
class
xyz:Motorvehicle (as well as of class
xyz:Van). A
class may be a subclass of more than one class (for example,
xyz:MiniVan may be a subclass of both
xyz:Van and
xyz:PassengerVehicle). All classes
Check this: What's the decision on
Literal?are implicitly subclasses of class
rdfs:Resource (since the instances belonging to all classes are
resources).
The example in Figure 17 shows the simple class hierarchy we have been
discussing. At the bottom, we show a class MotorVehicle. We then
show three subclasses of MotorVehicle, namely
PassengerVehicle, Truck and Van, related to class
MotorVehicle by rdfs:subClassOf properties. At the top, we
show class Minivan, which is a subclass of both Van and
PassengerVehicle.
Some corresponding RDF/XML syntax for this schema, defining the new
classes using the techniques for defining new resources described in Section
3, is shown below.
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="MotorVehicle">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="PassengerVehicle">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="Truck">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="Van">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="MiniVan">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Van"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#PassengerVehicle"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
This schema uses rdf:ID to assign names, such as
MotorVehicle, to the new resources (classes) that it defines. These
names can then be referred to in other class definitions within the same
schema. To refer to this RDF schema in RDF instance data (e.g., data defining
individual vehicles of these classes), which might be located elsewhere, the
instance data would typically include an XML namespace declaration
referencing the schema, for example (assuming that the schema was the
resource http://example.org/schemas/vehicles.rdfs), the namespace
declaration xmlns:xyz="http://example.org/schemas/vehicles#". This
would allow the instance data to use abbreviations such as
xyz:MotorVehicle to refer unambiguously to the class
MotorVehicle from this RDF Schema. As noted in Section 3, to ensure
that these references would be consistently maintained even if the schema
were relocated, the schema could also include an explicit
xml:base="http://example.org/schemas/vehicles" declaration.put more strongly. its recommended that
...
In addition to defining the specific delete "specific" - says
nothing classes of things they want to describe,
user communities also need to be able to define specific delete "specific"- says nothing properties
that characterize those classes of things (such as rearSeatLegRoom
to describe a passenger vehicle). In RDF Schema, properties are defined using
the RDF-defined class rdf:Property, and the RDFS-defined properties
rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and
rdfs:subPropertyOf.
All properties in RDF are defined as instances of class
rdf:Property. So a new property, such as ex:weightInKg, is
defined by creating an RDF resource to represent the new property, and giving
it an rdf:type property whose value is the resource
rdf:Property.
RDF Schema also provides a mechanism for specifying additional information
that describes how properties and classes are intended to be used together in
RDF data. The most important information of this kind is supplied by using
the RDFS-defined properties rdfs:range and rdfs:domain as
further descriptions of individual properties.
The rdfs:range property is used to indicate that the values of a
particular property are intended to be delete "intended to be" - "are" is sufficient
- and ditto below instances of a designated class. For
example, if we wanted to indicate that the property ex:author was
intended to have values that are instances of a class ex:Person, we
would give the (property) resource ex:author an rdfs:range
property whose value is the (class) resource ex:Person.
The rdfs:range property can also be used to indicate that the
value of a property is intended to be a literal of a particular datatype. For
example, if we wanted to indicate that the property ex:age was
intended to be a literal of the XML Schema datatype xsd:integer, we
would give the property) resource ex:age an rdfs:range
property whose value is the resource xsd:integer.
A property, say ex:hasMother, can have zero, one, or more than
one range property. If ex:hasMother has no range property, then we
are saying nothing about the intended values of the ex:hasMother
property. If ex:hasMother has one range property, say one specifying
ex:Person as the range, this says that the values of the
ex:hasMother property are intended to be instances of class
ex:Person. If ex:hasMother has more than one range
property, say one specifying ex:Person as its range, and another
specifying ex:Female as its range, this says that the values of the
ex:hasMother property are intended to be instances of all
of the classes specified as the ranges, i.e., that any value of
ex:hasMother should be both a ex:Female
and a ex:Person.
The rdfs:domain property is used to indicate that a particular
property is intended to be applied to instance
of a designated class. For example, if we wanted to indicate that the
property ex:author was intended to apply to instances of class
ex:Book, we would give the (property) resource ex:author an
rdfs:domain property whose value is the (class) resource
ex:Book.
A given property, say ex:weight, may have zero, one, or more than
one domain property. If ex:weight has no domain property, then we
are saying nothing about the resources that ex:weight properties may
be used with (any resource could have a ex:weight property). If
ex:weight has one domain property, say one specifying
ex:Book as the domain, this says that the ex:weight
property is intended to be applied to instances of class ex:Book. If
ex:weight has more than one domain property, say one specifying
ex:Book as the domain and another one specifying
ex:MotorVehicle as the domain, this says that any resource that has
a ex:weight property is intended to be an instance of all
of the classes specified as the domains, i.e., that any resource that has a
ex:weight property should be both a ex:Book and a
ex:MotorVehicle (illustrating the need for care in specifying
domains and ranges).
We can illustrate the use of these range and domain specifications by
continuing with our earlier example of xyz:MotorVehicle. Enough said I would have
thought. In this example, we define two properties:
xyz:registeredTo and xyz:rearSeatLegRoom. The
xyz:registeredTo property is intended to apply to any
xyz:MotorVehicle and its value is intended to be a
xyz:Person (a class we assume has been defined elsewhere). For the
sake of this example, xyz:rearSeatLegRoom is intended to apply only
to instances of class xyz:PassengerVehicle. The value is intended to
be an xsd:integer, which is the number of centimeters of rear seat
legroom. These definitions are shown in the RDF/XML below (we assume we are
adding this RDF/XML to the RDF/XML defining the classes that we gave
earlier):
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="registeredTo">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#MotorVehicle"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/classes#Person"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="rearSeatLegRoom">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PassengerVehicle"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
RDF Schema provides a way to specialize properties as well as
classes. We define this specialization relationship between two properties
using the pre-defined rdfs:subPropertyOf property. For example, if
ex:biologicalFather and ex:biologicalParent are both
properties, we can define ex:biologicalFather as a subproperty of
ex:biologicalParent by giving ex:biologicalFather an
rdfs:subPropertyOf property whose value is
ex:biologicalParent.
The meaning of this relationship is that if ex:biologicalFather
is a subproperty of the broader property ex:biologicalParent, and if
an instance ex:fred is the ex:biologicalFather of another
instance ex:john, then ex:fred is implicitly considered to
also be the ex:biologicalParent of ex:john. The RDF/XML
corresponding to these examples is shown below.
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="biologicalParent">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="biologicalFather">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#biologicalParent"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
A property may be a subproperty of zero, one or more properties. All RDF
rdfs:range and rdfs:domain properties that apply to an RDF
property also apply to each of its sub-properties.
Now that we've shown how to define classes and properties using RDF
Schema, we can see what instances corresponding to those definitions might
look like. For example, the following is an instance of the
xyz:PassengerVehicle class we defined above (which we assume is
being defined in the same document as the schema), together with some
hypothetical values for its xyz:registeredTo and
xyz:rearSeatLegRoom properties. Note the use of the
rdf:type property to indicate its class membership. Also note how we
can apply a xyz:registeredTo property to this instance of
xyz:PassengerVehicle, because xyz:PassengerVehicle is a
subclass of xyz:MotorVehicle.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:xyz="http://example.org/schemas/vehicles#>
<rdf:Description rdf:ID="johnSmithsCar">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="#PassengerVehicle"/>
<xyz:registeredTo rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740"/>
<xyz:rearSeatLegRoom
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer">127</xyz:rearSeatLegRoom>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
As we discussed in Section 3, the RDF/XML syntax provides an abbreviation
for instances defined as members of classes using the rdf:type
property. Using this abbreviation, we could define this same instance as:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:xyz="http://example.org/schemas/vehicles#>
<xyz:PassengerVehicle rdf:ID="johnSmithsCar">
<xyz:registeredTo rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/staffid/85740"/>
<xyz:rearSeatLegRoom
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer">127</xyz:rearSeatLegRoom>
</xyz:PassengerVehicle>
</rdf:RDF>
As noted earlier, the RDF Schema type system is similar in some respects
to the type systems of object-oriented programming languages such as Java.
However, RDF differs from most programming language type systems in several
important respects.
One important difference is that instead of defining a class in terms of
the properties its instances may have, an RDF schema defines properties in
terms of no, they are not defined "in
terms of". A range property asserts that all the values of the property are
members of a particular class. Similarly for domain. A property is defined by
a set of pairs. RDF Schema has no mechanism for specifying that, except
perhaps the rdfs:comment property.the classes of resource to
which they are intended to apply, using domain and range
properties. For example, a classical object-oriented programming language
might define a class Book with an attribute called author
having values of type Person. A corresponding RDF schema would
define a class ex:Book, and, in a separate definition, a property
ex:author having a domain of ex:Book and a range of
ex:Person.
The difference between these approaches may seem to be only syntactic, but
in fact there is an important difference. In the programming language class
definition, the attribute author is part of the definition of class
Book, and applies only to instances of class Book.
Another class (say, softwareModule) might also have an attribute
called author, but this would be considered a different
attribute. In other words, the scope of an attribute definition in
most programming languages is restricted to the class or type in which it is
defined. In RDF, on the other hand, property definitions are, by default,
independent of class definitions, and have, by default,
global scope (although they may optionally be declared to apply only
to certain classes using domain specifications). So, for example, an RDF
schema could define a property ex:weight without a domain being
specified. This property could then be used to describe instances of any
class that might be considered to have a weight. One benefit of the RDF
property-based approach is that it becomes easier to extend the use of
property definitions to situations that might not have been anticipated by
the original definer, provided the properties have not been made overly
specific by domain specifications. (Of course, this is a "benefit" which must
be used with care, to insure that properties are not mis-applied in
inappropriate situations.)
Another important difference is that RDF Schema declarations are not
necessarily prescriptive in the way programming language type
declarations typically are. For example, if a programming language declares a
class Book with an author attribute having values of type
Person, this is usually interpreted as a collection of
constraints. The language will not allow the creation of an instance
of Book without an author attribute, and it will not allow
an instance of Book with an author attribute that does not
have a Person as its value. Moreover, if author is the
only attribute defined for class Book, the language will
not allow an instance of Book with some other attribute.
RDF Schema, on the other hand, provides schema declarations as additional
descriptions of RDF data, but does not prescribe how these
descriptions should be used by an application. For example, suppose an RDF
schema specifies an ex:author property with an rdfs:range
of class ex:Person. This is simply an RDF statement that RDF
statements containing ex:author properties have instances of
ex:Person as objects. WOOHOO:
This is the line to take throughout the description of domain and range
properties.This statement must be combined with the RDF
statements represented by the instance data Whoa: whats this
instance data stuff?in determining what a given
collection of RDF statements means.
This schema-supplied information might be used in different ways. One
application might interpret this information as specifying part of a template
for RDF data it is creating, and use it to ensure that any
ex:author
property has a value of the indicated (
ex:Person) class. That is,
this application interprets the schema declaration as a
constraint
in the same way that a programming language might. However, another
application might interpret this schema information as providing additional
information about data it is receiving, information which may not be provided
explicitly in the original data. For example, this second application might
receive some RDF data that includes an
ex:author property whose
value is a resource of unspecified class, and use this schema-provided
statement to conclude that the resource must be
a member/instance of class
ex:Person.
A third application might receive some RDF data that includes an
ex:author property whose value is a resource of class
ex:Corporation, and use this schema information as the basis of a
warning that "there may be an inconsistency here, but on the other hand there
may not be". Somewhere else there may be a declaration that resolves the
apparent inconsistency (e.g., a declaration to the effect that "a Corporation
is a (legal) Person").
Moreover, depending on how the application interprets the property
declarations, an instance might be allowed to exist exist? the book exists or it does not -
removing a URI from a graph does not cause the book to disappear in a puff of
smoke (or in any other fashion)either without some
of the declared properties (e.g., you might have an instance of
ex:Book without an ex:author property, even if
ex:author is declared as having a domain of ex:Book), or
with additional properties (you might create an instance of
ex:Book with a xyz:technicalEditor property, even though
you haven't defined such a property in your particular schema.)
In other words, RDF Schema declarations are always descriptions
of RDF instance data. yes yes - but we
need to use that sort of language all they way through. They
may also be prescriptive (introduce constraints), but only if the
application interpreting those statements wants to treat them that way. All
RDF Schema does is provide a way of stating this additional information.
Whether this information conflicts with explicitly specified instance data is
up to the application to determine and act upon.
RDF Schema also defines a number of other properties, which can be used to
provide documentation and other information about an RDF schema or about
instances. For example the rdfs:comment property can be used to
provide a human-readable description of a resource. The rdfs:label
property can be used to provide a more human-readable version of a resource's
name. The rdfs:seeAlso property can be used to indicate a resource
that might provide additional information about the subject resource. The
rdfs:isDefinedBy property is a subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso,
and can be used to indicate the resource that defines the subject resource.
For further discussion of the use of these properties, you should consult the
RDF Schema Specification [RDF-SCHEMA].
RDF Schema provides basic capabilities for defining RDF vocabularies, but
additional capabilities are also possible, and can be useful. These
capabilities may be provided through further development of RDF Schema, or in
other languages. Other richer schema capabilities that have been identified
as useful (but that are not provided by RDF Schema) include:
- cardinality constraints on properties, e.g., that a Person has
exactly one biological father.
- specifying that a given property (such as hasAncestor) is
transitive, e.g., that if A hasAncestor B, and B
hasAncestor C, then A hasAncestor C.
- specifying that two different classes, defined in separate schemas,
actually represent the same concept. Not just classes right? Would expect to
see the term "equivalence" here.
- specifying that two different instances, defined separately, actually
represent the same individual.
- the ability to define new classes in terms of combinations (e.g.,
unions and intersections) of other classes. Also the ability to say that things are
distinct i.e. disjoing classes. Very important.
The additional capabilities mentioned above, in addition to others, are
the targets of ontology languages such as DAML+OIL [DAML+OIL] and OWL [OWL].
Both these languages are based on RDF and RDF Schema (and both currently
provide all the additional capabilities mentioned above). The intent of such
languages is to provide additional machine-processable semantics for
resources, that is, to make the machine representations of resources more
closely resemble their intended real world counterparts. While such
capabilities are not necessarily needed to build useful applications using
RDF (see Section 6 for a description of a number
of RDF applications), the development of such languages is a very active
subject of work as part of the development of the Semantic Web.
I've put this in green, but maybe it
should be purple. I would have expected a primer to have built up a complete
schema in this chapter and be able to point to it as an example. In something
I have written recently I used one based on human relationships, the complete
schema demonstrates all the features of RDFS and fits on one
page.
Sorry, I'm repeating myself. This is
an echo of my textbook v primer comment earlier.
6. Some RDF Applications:
RDF in the Field
In the previous sections, we have described the general capabilities of
RDF and RDF Schema. While we have used examples within those sections to
illustrate those capabilities, and some of those examples may have suggested
potential RDF applications, we have not yet discussed any real ones.
In this section, we will describe some actual deployed RDF applications,
showing how RDF supports various real-world requirements to represent and
manipulate information about a wide variety of things.
What is the purpose of this section?
The prism section, for example reads like a mini primer on prism. It isn't
being used to demonstrate practical application of RDF
features.
I like the idea of looking at a real
example, but I'd expect it to be tutorial style. Here is how xxx used rdf(s)
feature yyy. And look at the benefits you get.
Metadata is data about data. Specifically, the term
refers to data used to identify, describe, or locate information resources,
whether these resources are physical or electronic. While structured metadata
processed by computers is relatively new, the basic concept of metadata has
been used for many years in helping manage and use large collections of
information. Library card catalogs are a familiar example of such
metadata.
The Dublin Core is a set of "elements" (properties) for describing
documents (and hence, for recording metadata). The element set was originally
developed at the March 1995 Metadata Workshop in Dublin, Ohio. The Dublin
Core has subsequently been modified on the basis of later Dublin Core
Metadata workshops, and is currently maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The goal
of the Dublin Core is to provide a minimal set of descriptive elements that
facilitate the description and the automated indexing of document-like
networked objects, in a manner similar to a library card catalog. The Dublin
Core metadata set is intended to be suitable for use by resource discovery
tools on the Internet, such as the "webcrawlers" employed by popular World
Wide Web search engines. In addition, the Dublin Core is meant to be
sufficiently simple to be understood and used by the wide range of authors
and casual publishers who contribute information to the Internet. Dublin Core
elements have become widely used in documenting Internet resources (we have
already used the Dublin Core creator element in earlier examples).
The current elements of the Dublin Core are defined in the Dublin Core Metadata Element
Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description [DC], and contain definitions for the following
properties:
- Title: A name given to the resource.
- Creator: An entity primarily responsible for making
the content of the resource.
- Subject: The topic of the content of the resource.
- Description: An account of the content of the
resource.
- Publisher: An entity responsible for making the
resource available
- Contributor: An entity responsible for making
contributions to the content of the resource.
- Date: A date associated with an event in the life
cycle of the resource.
- Type: The nature or genre of the content of the
resource.
- Format: The physical or digital manifestation of the
resource.
- Identifier: An unambiguous reference to the resource
within a given context.
- Source: A Reference to a resource from which the
present resource is derived.
- Language: A language of the intellectual content of
the resource.
- Relation: A reference to a related resource.
- Coverage: The extent or scope of the content of the
resource.
- Rights: Information about rights held in and over the
resource.
Information using the Dublin Core elements may be represented in any
suitable language (e.g., in HTML Meta elements). However, RDF is an ideal
representation for Dublin Core information. The examples below represent the
simple description of a set of resources in RDF using the Dublin Core
vocabulary. Note that the specific Dublin Core RDF vocabulary shown here is
not intended to be authoritative. The Dublin Core Reference Description [DC] is the authoritative reference.
Here is a description of a Web site home page using Dublin Core
properties:
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.dlib.org">
<dc:title>D-Lib Program - Research in Digital Libraries</dc:title>
<dc:description>The D-Lib program supports the community of people
with research interests in digital libraries and electronic
publishing.</dc:description>
<dc:publisher>Corporation For National Research Initiatives</dc:publisher>
<dc:date>1995-01-07</dc:date>
<dc:subject>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:li>Research; statistical methods</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>Education, research, related topics</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>Library use Studies</rdf:li>
</rdf:Bag>
</dc:subject>
<dc:type>World Wide Web Home Page</dc:type>
<dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
<dc:language>en</dc:language>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Note that both RDF and the Dublin Core define an (XML) element called
"Description" (although here we've written the Dublin Core element name in
lower case). Even if the initial letter were identically uppercase, the XML
namespace mechanism enables us to distinguish between these two elements (one
is rdf:Description, and the other is dc:description). Also,
as a matter of interest, if you access "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" in
a Web browser (as of the current writing), you will get an RDF Schema
declaration for the Dublin Core Element Set 1.1.]
The second example describes a published magazine.
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may98/05contents.html">
<dc:title>DLIB Magazine - The Magazine for Digital Library Research
- May 1998</dc:title>
<dc:description>D-LIB magazine is a monthly compilation of
contributed stories, commentary, and briefings.</dc:description>
<dc:contributor>Amy Friedlander</dc:contributor>
<dc:publisher>Corporation for National Research Initiatives</dc:publisher>
<dc:date>1998-01-05</dc:date>
<dc:type>electronic journal</dc:type>
<dc:subject>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:li>library use studies</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>magazines and newspapers</rdf:li>
</rdf:Bag>
</dc:subject>
<dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
<dc:identifier>urn:issn:1082-9873</dc:identifier>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.org"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
In this example, we've used (in the third line from the bottom) the Dublin
Core qualifier isPartOf (from a separate namespace) to
indicate that this magazine is "part of" the previously-described web
site.
The third example is of a specific article in the magazine referred to in
the previous example.
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may98/miller/05miller.html">
<dc:title>An Introduction to the Resource Description Framework</dc:title>
<dc:creator>Eric J. Miller</dc:creator>
<dc:description>The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is an
infrastructure that enables the encoding, exchange and reuse of
structured metadata. rdf is an application of xml that imposes needed
structural constraints to provide unambiguous methods of expressing
semantics. rdf additionally provides a means for publishing both
human-readable and machine-processable vocabularies designed to
encourage the reuse and extension of metadata semantics among
disparate information communities. the structural constraints rdf
imposes to support the consistent encoding and exchange of
standardized metadata provides for the interchangeability of separate
packages of metadata defined by different resource description
communities. </dc:description>
<dc:publisher>Corporation for National Research Initiatives</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:li>machine-readable catalog record formats</rdf:li>
<rdf:li>applications of computer file organization and
access methods</rdf:li>
</rdf:Bag>
</dc:subject>
<dc:rights>Copyright @ 1998 Eric Miller</dc:rights>
<dc:type>Electronic Document</dc:type>
<dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
<dc:language>en</dc:language>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may98/05contents.html"/>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
In this final example, we've also used the qualifier isPartOf,
this time to indicate that this article is "part of" the previously-described
magazine.
PRISM:
Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata [PRISM] is a metadata specification developed in the
publishing industry. Magazine publishers and their vendors formed the PRISM Working Group to identify the
industry's needs for metadata and define a specification to meet them.
Publishers want to use existing content in many ways in order to get a
greater return on the investment made in creating it. Converting magazine
articles to HTML for posting on the web is one example. Licensing it to
aggregators like LexisNexis is another. All of these are "first uses" of the
content; typically they all go live at the time the magazine hits the stands.
The publishers also want their content to be "evergreen". It might be used in
new issues, such as in a retrospective article. It could be used by other
divisions in the company, such as in a book compiled from the magazine's
photos, recipes, etc. Another use is to license it to outsiders, such as in a
reprint of a product review, or in a retrospective produced by a different
publisher. This overall goal requires a metadata approach which emphasizes
discovery, rights tracking, and end-to-end
metadata.
Discovery: Discovery is a general term for finding content which
encompasses searching, browsing, content routing (described further in
section [reference]) missing reference
and no @@ to mark as todo, and other techniques. Discussions
of discovery frequently center on a consumer searching a public web site.
However, discovering content is much broader than that. The audience may be
consist of consumers, or it may be consist of internal users such as researchers,
designers, photo editors, licensing agents, etc. To assist discovery, PRISM
provides elements we should be using RDF
terms here: properties for the topics, formats, genre,
origin, and contexts of a resource. It also provides for categorizing classes? resources using
multiple subject description taxonomies.
Rights Tracking: Magazines frequently contain material licensed
from others. Photos from a stock photo agency are the most common type of
licensed material, but articles, sidebars, and all other types of content may
be licensed. Simply knowing if content was licensed for one-time use,
requires royalty payments, or is wholly-owned by the publisher is a struggle.
PRISM provides elements for basic tracking of such rights. A separate
namespace RDF terms:
vocabulary/schema?defined in
the PRISM specification allows one to build descriptions of places, times,
and industries where content may or may not be used.
End-to-end metadata: Most published content already has metadata
created for it. Unfortunately, when content moves between systems, the
metadata is frequently discarded, only to be re-created later in the
production process at considerable expense. PRISM aims to reduce this problem
by providing a specification that can be used in multiple stages in the
content production pipeline. An important feature of the PRISM specification
is its use of other existing specifications. Rather than create an entirely
new thing, the group decided to use existing specifications as much as
possible, and only define new things where needed. For this reason, the PRISM
specification uses XML, RDF, Dublin Core, and well as various ISO formats and
vocabularies. I'd be tempted to
reference earlier words on integration from different vocabularies and cite
PRISM both there and here, as a practical example.
A PRISM description may be as simple as a few elements properties from the Dublin Core with literal
values. The example below describes a photograph, giving basic information on
its title, photographer, format, etc.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xml:lang="en-US">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/Corfu.jpg">
<dc:title>Walking on the Beach in Corfu</dc:title>
<dc:description>Photograph taken at 6:00 am on Corfu with two models
</dc:description>
<dc:creator>John Peterson</dc:creator>
<dc:contributor>Sally Smith, lighting</dc:contributor>
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
PRISM also augments the Dublin Core to allow more detailed descriptions.
The augmentations are defined in three new namespaces vocabularies, generally cited using the
prefixes prism:, pcv:, and prl:.
prism: This prefix refers to the main PRISM namespace, whose URI
is http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/basic/1.0/. verbose. if folks want to know the prism
namespace they should go look at the prism spec. Most of its
elements are more specific versions of elements from the Dublin Core. For
example, dc:date is extended by elements subProperties? Are they
subproperties? like prism:publicationTime,
prism:releaseTime, prism:expirationTime, etc.
pcv: This prefix refers to the PRISM Controlled Vocabulary
namespace, whose URI is
http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/pcv/1.0/. Currently, common
practice for describing the subject(s) of an article is by supplying
appropriate-seeming keywords. Unfortunately, simple keywords do not make a
great difference in retrieval performance, due to the fact that different
people will use different keywords [BATES96]. Best
practice is to code the articles with subject terms from a "controlled
vocabulary". The vocabulary should provide as many synonyms as possible for
its terms in the vocabulary. This way the controlled terms provide a meeting
ground for the keywords supplied by the searcher and the indexer. The PRISM
Controlled Vocabulary (pcv) namespace provides elements for specifying terms
in a vocabulary, the relations between terms, and alternate names for the
terms.
prl: This prefix refers to the PRISM Rights Language namespace,
whose URI is http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/prl/1.0/. Digital
Rights Management is an area undergoing considerable upheaval. There are a
number of proposals for rights management languages, but none are clearly
favored throughout the industry. Because there was no clear choice to
recommend, the PRISM Rights Language (PRL) was defined as an interim measure.
It provides elements which let people say if an item can or can't be 'used',
depending on conditions of time, geography, and industry. This is believed to
be an 80/20 tradeoff which will help publishers begin to save money when
tracking rights. It is not intended to be a general rights language, or allow
publishers to automatically enforce limits on consumer uses of the
content.
PRISM uses RDF because of its abilities for dealing with descriptions of
varying complexity. Currently, a great deal of metadata uses simple character
string values, such as
<dc:coverage>Greece</dc:coverage>
Over time we I suspect we have the
wrong "we" here. Ron wrote this right? Ron might expect this, I'm not sure
the WG does. Over time, uses of the PRISM specification are
expected ... don't like this passive voice much. Is there a direct
way to phrase it. Yes. The developers of Prism expect uses
of the PRISM specification to become more sophisticated, moving from simple
literal values to more structured values. In fact, that range of values is a
situation we wrong we again
face now. Some publishers already use sophisticated
controlled vocabularies, others are barely using manually-supplied keywords.
Some examples of the different kinds of values that can be given are: do we want to say anything about datatypes
here.
<dc:coverage>Greece</dc:coverage>
<dc:coverage rdf:resource="http://prismstandard.org/vocabs/ISO-3166/GR"/>
and
<dc:coverage>
<pcv:Descriptor rdf:about="http://prismstandard.org/vocabs/ISO-3166/GR">
<pcv:label xml:lang="en">Greece</pcv:label>
<pcv:label xml:lang="fr">Grece</pcv:label>
</pcv:Descriptor>
</dc:coverage>
Note also that there are elements whose meanings are similar, or subsets
of other elements. For example, the geographic subject of a resource could be
given with
<prism:subject>Greece</prism:subject>
<dc:coverage>Greece</dc:coverage>
or
<prism:location>Greece</prism:location>
Any of those elements might use the simple literal value, or a more
complex structured value. Such a range of possibilities cannot be adequately
described by DTDs, or even by the newer XML Schemas. While there is a wide
range of syntax to deal with, RDF's graph model has a simple structure - a
list of 'triples'. Dealing with the metadata in the triples domain makes it
much easier for older software to accommodate content with new extensions.
Doesn't feel right. Has this text been
borrowed from elsewhere? Overall it doesn't seem to fit the
context.
We will close this section with two final examples. The first example says
that the image (.../Corfu.jpg) cannot be used (#none) in
the tobacco industry (code 21 in SIC, the Standard Industrial
Classifications).
<rdf:RDF xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/basic/1.0/"
xmlns:prl="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/prl/1.0/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/Corfu.jpg">
<dc:rights rdf:parseType="Resource"
xml:base="http://prismstandard.org/vocabularies/1.0/usage.xml">
<prl:usage rdf:resource="#none"/>
<prl:industry rdf:resource="http://prismstandard.org/vocabs/SIC/21"/>
</dc:rights>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
The second says that the photographer for the Corfu image was employee
3845, better known as John Peterson. It also says that the geographic
coverage of the photo is Greece. It does so by providing, not just a code
from a controlled vocabulary, but a cached version of the information for
that term in the vocabulary.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:pcv="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/pcv/1.0/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xml:base="http://wanderlust.com/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="/2000/08/Corfu.jpg">
<dc:identifier rdf:resource="/content/2357845" />
<dc:creator>
<pcv:Descriptor rdf:about="/emp3845">
<pcv:label>John Peterson</pcv:label>
</pcv:Descriptor>
</dc:creator>
<dc:coverage>
<pcv:Descriptor
rdf:about="http://prismstandard.org/vocabs/ISO-3166/GR">
<pcv:label xml:lang="en">Greece</pcv:label>
<pcv:label xml:lang="fr">Grece</pcv:label>
</pcv:Descriptor>
</dc:coverage>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Many situations involve the need to maintain information about structured
collections of resources and their associations that are, or may be, used as
a unit. The XML Package
(XPackage) specification [XPACKAGE] provides
a framework for defining such collections, called packages. XPackage
specifies a framework vocabulary for
describing the resources included in such packages, the properties of those
resources, their method of inclusion, and their relationships with each
other. XPackage applications include specifying the stylesheets used by a
document, declaring the images shared by multiple documents, indicating the
author and other metadata of a document, describing how namespaces are used
by XML resources, and providing a manifest for bundling resources into a
single archive file. I'd have expected
the word "dependency" to have appeared here somewhere.
The XPackage framework is based upon XML, RDF, and the XML Linking Language [XLINK], and provides two RDF vocabularies TICK: one for general
packaging descriptions, and another for describing XML-based what is an xml based resource?
resources in XML format resources. The XPackage framework
also allows customization through extension and/or restriction.
One application of XPackage is the description of XHTML documents and
their supporting resources. An XHTML document retrieved from a web site may
rely on other resources such as stylesheets and image files that also need to
be retrieved. However, the identities of these supporting resources may not
be obvious without processing the entire document. Other information about
the document, such as the name of its author, may also not be available
without processing the document. XPackage allows such descriptive information
to be stored in a standard way in a package description document containing
RDF. The outer elements of a package description document describing such an
XHTML document might look like the following example (with namespace
declarations removed for simplicity):
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xpackage:description>
<rdf:RDF>
(description of individual resources go here)
</rdf:RDF>
</xpackage:description>
Resources (such as the XHTML document, stylesheets, and images) are
described within this package description document. The XHTML document
resource itself is described using an RDF resource description element
<xpackage:resource> from the XPackage ontology (the
term XPackage uses for a vocabulary). Each resource description element may
include RDF properties from various We
seem to have kept away from the O word - probably a good thing.
vocabularies ontologies. In the example below, the document's
MIME content type ("application/xhtml+xml") is defined using a standard
XPackage property from the XPackage ontology, xpackage:contentType.
Another property, the document's author (in this case, "Garret Wilson"), is
described using a property from the Dublin Core (which is considered a
custom ontology in XPackage), resulting in a dc:creator
property. XPackage itself specifies an extension property set specifically
for XML-based resources, the XML ontology, including specifying XML
namespaces and stylesheets used with the xmlprop:namespace and
xmlprop:style properties, respectively.
<!--doc.html-->
<xpackage:resource rdf:about="urn:examples:xhtmldocument-doc">
<rdfs:comment>The XHTML document.</rdfs:comment>
<xpackage:location xlink:href="doc.html"/>
<xpackage:contentType>application/xhtml+xml</xpackage:contentType>
<xmlprop:namespace rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"/>
<xmlprop:style rdf:resource="urn:examples:xhtmldocument-stylesheet"/>
<xmlprop:annotation rdf:resource="urn:examples:xhtmldocument-annotation"/>
<dc:creator>Garret Wilson</dc:creator>
<xpackage:manifest>
<rdf:Bag>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="urn:examples:xhtmldocument-stylesheet"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="urn:examples:xhtmldocument-image"/>
</rdf:Bag>
</xpackage:manifest>
</xpackage:resource>
The xpackage:manifest property indicates that both the stylesheet
and image resources are necessary for processing; those resources are
described separately within the package description document. The example
stylesheet resource description below lists its location ("stylesheet.css")
using the XPackage ontology xpackage:location property (which is
compatible with XLink), and shows through use of the XPackage ontology
xpackage:contentType property that it is a CSS stylesheet
("text/css").
<!--stylesheet.css-->
<xpackage:resource rdf:about="urn:examples:xhtmldocument-css">
<rdfs:comment>The document stylesheet.</rdfs:comment>
<xpackage:location xlink:href="stylesheet.css"/>
<xpackage:contentType>text/css</xpackage:contentType>
</xpackage:resource>
The full version of this example may be found in [XPACKAGE].
The world is full of information. Behind the millions of pages on the
Internet's most visible part, the Web, there are many times as many documents
flowing in and out of organizations via emails, cross-company networks, and
constant always-on information "feeds".
In order to determine whether the information is useful, and where it
should be directed, every document that passes along the wires has to be
inspected, processed, and routed. For example, a document written by one
human being has to be read by another before anybody knows its worth or,
possibly, where it should be redirected. Nonsense. conferencing systems have used
subject based addressing for ages. News for example. This
is fine for direct person-to-person email but, for information intended for a
broad circulation, this manual inspection can be expensive, often reducing
the value of the information by raising its handling cost, or simply making
it late. For example, when an individual subscribes to a given source, the
usual understanding is that everything from that source will be delivered
without question. For the distributor to sort out the interesting items for
you manually, based a a set of criteria you supply, would be time-consuming,
expensive and boring; so instead we accept dozens of emails and delete most
of them every morning. And of course it is time-consuming, expensive and
boring. As a result, subscription to certain sources is a step to be taken
very seriously.
When a company subscribes to a news feed, it may be risking a deluge of
unwanted data. If it intends to circulate the information within the company
or to a broad range of clients, it often takes on the responsibility itself
of manually checking every document, or investing in extra software
technology to try to automate the process. Without such protection, the
company will waste network bandwidth, or its clients will consider themselves
"spammed" and seek other business partners. Selection of information from
such feeds is thus a matter of prime importance in a context of huge and
increasing volumes and complexity of data. The technology concerned is
"routing" and, in the most modern cases marketing cowpoo, relies on
RDF.
The traditional need for human inspection of incoming documents comes from
the fact that, on its own, text has no value. more cowpoo. this
just went critical for me. We should delete this section.
It only has value when you know what it is about, the
authority of its source, and who it is intended for. For a software agent to
recognize a document's relevance or worth, it must have access to metadata
that is consistently readable, whatever the format of the document, and is
reliable in its description. For those two objectives, we need a standardized
way of expressing the metadata, and globally recognized sets of terms. A
standardized way of expressing the metadata is provided by RDF, and the terms
can be defined in RDF Schemas (or richer ontologies using languages based on
it) such as those defined by Dublin Core, PRISM, and other specialized
subject vocabularies. The required metadata then takes the form of either RDF
embedded in the document, or an associated RDF document.
Not that every document from every information source comes with an
associated RDF description... yet. However, almost every serious source
supplies some value-based annotations serving as metadata. For example, news
feeds generally come in one of a selection of annotated formats, mostly based
on XML, such as NewsML. Most
standards-oriented companies are adding freely-accessible metadata to their
document formats. Adobe, for example, recently announced XMP whereby metadata
can be inserted into (and more importantly extracted from) PDF documents. The
message from such companies is that, even if you cannot understand or even
have no right to read the contents, you are entitled to know enough to make
an evaluation for your own use or for clients who can use the information.
This basic process (source embeds standard annotations, annotations are
used to route and sort documents) is certainly not new. Email (SMTP) and news
(NNTP) protocols use standard keyword-value-pair headers which are
fundamental to their operation. Such documents are marked up according to
known and publicized standards. What is new is the movement towards
normalizing all these local formats to a general one, and thereby being able
to appeal to globally consistent sets of terms in making judgments.
For a universal router to do its job, it needs to cancel out any
variations in format. Even when multiple formats and vocabularies need to be
compared it is safer to have one standard to convert to first and then to
compare rather than do it piecemeal - and that standard must be broader than
all the others. Again, RDF- (and RDF-Schema-) based standards are a natural
choice.
Using this approach, an Information Router might collect metadata and
store these descriptions in RDF (rather like an enormous RDF document
describing perhaps millions of resources at once). The descriptions could
then be exported or imported in a standard form without loss or confusion.
World-wide, repositories of metadata could be synchronized and refreshed by
exchanging RDF. While humans are exchanging images, videos and news items,
metadata servers could be exchanging compact RDF descriptions of this same
information.
The actual documents described by the RDF, orders of magnitude larger than
the metadata, could be stored elsewhere or just left where they are (located
by URI, of course). Judgments about distributing material could be made in a
context of universally accepted and agreed-on terms (e.g., systems like
Dublin Core and a vast number of alternatives), all without moving the actual
documents around or indeed even looking at them, by computer or by human
eye.
Judgments could be made by comparing document metadata to RDF queries or
profiles which test the value of a document to the reader: whether the
subject is interesting, the content is suitable, the author respected, the
source reliable, the document accessible, the cost reasonable, the language
intelligible, the conclusion desirable, the format tractable, etc., etc. The
actual form of such a query or profile could vary from product to product.
(In any case, consumers could be given a human-friendly way to express their
wishes.) The news distributor's server could run, in addition to the usual
server software, one of these Information Router packages, which applies
queries on behalf of its clients and delivers just those documents that pass
the evaluation. If a complex multi-layered query describing just what it
takes to please you were associated with your name as a subscriber, you
could, using software available today, guarantee that what you are sent is
exactly and only what you need.
Reuters Health Information
(RHI) is an example of this idea in action, and of the use of RDF in
supporting it. RHI, a subsidiary of the internationally-known Reuters news
organization, delivers online health information each day to subscribers
(including both healthcare professionals and the general public) all over the
world. RHI faces the problem both of providing information to clients that
matches their specific interests (for example, a hospital specializing in
cancer treatment may only be interested in articles related to cancer), and
providing that information in a timely manner. To automate and streamline the
customized delivery of this information, RHI uses the basic concepts of the
Intelligent Routing technology described above: specialized metadata
associated with each article, and routing those articles to clients based on
comparing that metadata with profiles describing each client's specific
interests.
Specifically, RHI creates subsets of its health news articles, called
"verticals", tailored to specific subject areas [COWAN02]. RHI creates both pre-defined verticals, and
customized verticals for specific client requirements. To distribute the
articles to the appropriate verticals, RHI creates a profile that describes
the characteristics of articles that should go into that vertical, using
subject codes from specialized medical taxonomies. The profiles are created
by staff doctors (i.e., subject matter experts), using a profile creation
tool.
Another tool is used to tag each article with the appropriate subject
codes from the same taxonomies. Tagging is done on the basis of the semantic
content of the article, independently of which profiles exist. Articles are
tagged either by the original author, or in-house by RHI, and generally takes
around 2-3 minutes per article.
Several taxonomies are used to tag articles. The primary medical taxonomy
used is SNOMED RT (Systematized
Nomenclature of Medicine Reference Terminology, a copyrighted medical
taxonomy developed by the College of American Pathologists). MeSH (Medical Subject
Headings, the National Library of Medicine's controlled vocabulary thesaurus)
is also used. Stories are also tagged on the basis of other criteria, using
codes from vocabularies that describe these criteria. These criteria include
companies and industries mentioned in the articles, locations (e.g., the
outbreak of a disease in a particular country), demographics (e.g., an age
group relevant to the article), and medical devices or drugs mentioned in the
article.
The tagging process is aided by the fact that the medical taxonomies
capture term relationships, so that, e.g., if an article is tagged for "heart
attack", it is also automatically tagged for "heart disease" and "disease".
The stories are tagged in a fairly detailed way, so that if a story is about
heart attacks in 55-year-old women, it is tagged for "heart attack", "women",
and "55-year-olds". The taxonomies also identify synonyms (e.g., "kidney
disorder" and "renal disease"). Once tagged, articles are automatically
matched against the profiles describing the verticals, and distributed
appropriately. Clients then receive the stories that belong to the verticals
they've bought.
Clients can choose to have news articles provided in several formats. One
of them is an RHI-defined XML format that includes an RDF section containing
the tags that describe the semantic content of the article. RHI charges extra
for this format, but some customers are willing to pay for the extra
metadata, since it allows them to do their own classifications.
Examples such as this illustrate the power of combining metadata in
standard representations such as RDF with terms from standard vocabularies or
ontologies. It is easy to imagine the additional capabilities that would be
available once all these vocabularies are made machine-processable, using
languages such as DAML+OIL or OWL. These examples also provide another
instance in which RDF can play an important role in supporting automated
information processing, but in a way that is largely "invisible" to the Web.
This is because routing and filtering components use the RDF internally, but
it may never actually appear in the final displayed article (except sometimes
accidentally).
RSS 1.0 ("RDF Site Summary") is an
RDF Vocabulary that provides a lightweight multipurpose extensible metadata
description and syndication format. In short, RSS 1.0 is a very powerful and
extensible way of describing, managing and making available to very broad
audiences relevant and timely information. More marketing. RSS 1.0 is used to
describe, manage and make available to broad audiences relevant and timely
information. It allows information to be made available in a very
rich and reusable way and it is also perhaps the most widely deployed RDF
application on the web. I'm seeing a
pattern here. Delete every clause containing the word
"very".
When you consider all of the information that that you access on the Web
on a day-to-day basis; your schedule, to-do lists, news headlines, search
results, "What's New", etc. the challenges for managing this information
become daunting. It becomes increasingly difficult to manage this information
and integrate this into a coherent whole as the sources of and the diversity
of this information increase. more
marketing RSS 1.0 is an RDF vocabulary that allows the
syndication of information, or metadata, and so facilities the distribution
and re-purposing of this data.
A Simple Example
The W3C home page, shown below, is a
primary point of contact with the public and serves in part to disseminate
information about the deliverables of the Consortium. The center column of
news items changes frequently. To support the timely dissemination of this
information, the W3C Team has implemented an RDF Site Summary (RSS 1.0) news feed that makes the content
in the center column available to others to repurpose as they will. News
syndication sites may merge the headlines into a summary of the day's latest
news, others may display the headlines as links as a service to their
readers, and, increasingly, individuals may subscribe to this feed with a
desktop application. These desktop RSS readers allow their users to keep
track of potentially hundreds of sites, without having to visit each one in
their browser.
Countless sites all over the Web provide RSS 1.0 feeds. Here is an example
of the W3C feed:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<channel rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/home.rss">
<title>The World Wide Web Consortium</title>
<description>Leading the Web to its Full Potential...</description>
<link>http://www.w3.org/</link>
<dc:date>2002-10-28T08:07:21Z</dc:date>
<items>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item164"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item168"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item167"/>
</rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item164">
<title>User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Become a W3C
Proposed Recommendation</title>
<description>17 October 2002: W3C is pleased to announce the
advancement of User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 to
Proposed Recommendation. Comments are welcome through 14 November.
Written for developers of user agents, the guidelines lower
barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities
(visual, hearing, physical, cognitive, and neurological).
The companion Techniques Working Draft is updated. Read about
the Web Accessibility Initiative. (News archive)</description>
<link>http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item164</link>
<dc:date>2002-10-17</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item168">
<title>Working Draft of Authoring Challenges for Device
Independence Published</title>
<description>25 October 2002: The Device Independence
Working Group has released the first public Working Draft of
Authoring Challenges for Device Independence. The draft describes
the considerations that Web authors face in supporting access to
their sites from a variety of different devices. It is written
for authors, language developers, device experts and developers
of Web applications and authoring systems. Read about the Device
Independence Activity (News archive)</description>
<link>http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item168</link>
<dc:date>2002-10-25</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item167">
<title>CSS3 Last Call Working Drafts Published</title>
<description>24 October 2002: The CSS Working Group has
released two Last Call Working Drafts and welcomes comments
on them through 27 November. CSS3 module: text is a set of
text formatting properties and addresses international contexts.
CSS3 module: Ruby is properties for ruby, a short run of text
alongside base text typically used in East Asia. CSS3 module:
The box model for the layout of textual documents in visual
media is also updated. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is a
language used to render structured documents like HTML and
XML on screen, on paper, and in speech. Visit the CSS home
page. (News archive)</description>
<link>http://www.w3.org/News/2002#item167</link>
<dc:date>2002-10-24</dc:date>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
As you can see, the format is perfectly perfection? suited to content
that can be packaged into easily disinguishable sections. News sites, web
logs, sports scores, stock quotes, and the like are all perfect more perfection use-cases for
RSS 1.0.
Maybe I'm off base with what we are
trying to do here. I can understand picking an example application of RDF
and going through showing how it uses RDF features. I can understand having
a list of real uses of RDF with brief (1 para) descriptions of them and links
off to more material about them.
I'm not sure I grok what's going on
here though. So I figure I better shut up till I do, as my detailed comments
are unlikely to be useful.
The feed can be requested by any application able to speak HTTP. More
recently, however, RSS 1.0 applications are splitting into three different
catagories:
- Online aggregators - Sites such as Meerkat
and NewsIsFree,
as pictured below (each mirroring W3C's column of news). These gather
feeds from thousands of sources, and seperate each of the <item>s
out, adding them together again into one large group. The whole group is
then made searchable. In this way, one can search for the latest news on,
for example, 'Java' from perhaps thousands of sites, without having to
search them all.
- Desktop Readers - Utilities such as Amphetadesk and NetNewsWire Lite
allow their users to subscribe to hundreds of feeds from their desktop.
Readers customarily refresh each feed once an hour, allowing users to
stay up to date.
- Scripts - RSS's original purpose was to allow webmasters to include the
content of another's site within their own. RSS 1.0 is still used in this
way, with many sites (Slashdot for
example) incorporating RSS feeds on their front page.
Extensibility
RSS 1.0 is, by design, extremely extensible. By importing additional RDF
vocabularies, or modules as they are known within the RSS
development community, the RSS 1.0 author can provide large amounts of
metadata and handling instructions to the recipient of the file. Modules can,
as with more general RDF vocabularies, be written by anyone. Currently there
are 3 official modules and 19 proposed
modules readily recognised by the community at large. These modules range
from the complete Dublin Core module to
more specialised RSS-centric modules such as the Aggregation
module.
The Name
Care should be taken when discussing RSS is the scope of RDF. There are
currently two RSS specification strands. One strand (RSS 0.91,0.92,0.93,0.94
and 2.0) does not use RDF. The other strand (RSS 0.9 and 1.0) does.
6.6 CIM/XML
Electric utilities use power system models for a number of different
purposes. For example, simulations of power systems are necessary for
planning and security analysis. Power system models are also used in actual
operations, e.g., by the Energy Management Systems (EMS) used in energy
control centers. An operational power system model can consist of thousands
of classes of information. In addition to using these models in-house,
utilities need to exchange system modeling information, both in planning, and
for operational purposes, e.g., for coordinating transmission and ensuring
reliable operations. However, individual utilities use different software for
these purposes, and as a result the system models are stored in different
formats, making the exchange of these models difficult.
In order to support the exchange of power system models, utilities needed
to agree on common definitions of power system entities and relationships. To
support this, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) a non-profit energy research consortium, developed a Common Information Model (CIM). The
CIM specifies common semantics for power system resources, their attributes,
and relationships. In addition, to further support the ability to
electronically exchange CIM models, the power industry has developed CIM/XML, a language for
expressing CIM models in XML. CIM/XML is an RDF application, using RDF and
RDF Schema to organize its XML structures. The North American Electric Reliability Council
(NERC) (an industry-supported organization formed to promote the reliability
of electricity delivery in North America) has adopted CIM/XML as the standard
for exchanging models between power transmission system operators. The
CIM/XML format is also going through an IEC international standardization
process. An excellent discussion of CIM/XML can be found in [DWZ01]. [NB: This power industry CIM should not be
confused with the CIM developed by the Distributed Management Task Force for
defining management information for distributed software, network, and
enterprise environments. The DMTF CIM also has an XML representation, but
does not use RDF.]
The CIM can represent all of the major objects of an electric utility as
object classes and attributes, as well as their relationships. CIM uses these
object classes and attributes to support the integration of independently
developed applications between vendor specific EMS systems, or between an EMS
system and other systems that are concerned with different aspects of power
system operations, such as generation or distribution management.
The CIM is specified as a set of class diagrams using the Unified Modeling
Language (UML). The base class of the CIM is the PowerSystemResource
class, with other more specialized classes such as Substation,
Switch, and Breaker being defined as subclasses. CIM/XML
represents the CIM as an RDF schema vocabulary, and uses RDF/XML as the
language for exchanging specific system models. The following are examples of
class and property definitions from CIM/XML:
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="PowerSystemResource">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">PowerSystemResource</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="rdfs:Resource" />
<rdfs:comment>"A power system component that can be either an
individual element such as a switch or a set of elements
such as an substation. PowerSystemResources that are sets
could be members of other sets. For example a Switch is a
member of a Substation and a Substation could be a member
of a division of a Company"</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Breaker">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Breaker</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Switch" />
<rdfs:comment>"A mechanical switching device capable of making,
carrying, and breaking currents under normal circuit conditions
and also making, carrying for a specified time, and breaking
currents under specified abnormal circuit conditions e.g. those
of short circuit. The typeName is the type of breaker, e.g.,
oil, air blast, vacuum, SF6."</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>
<rdf:Property rdf:ID="Breaker.ampRating">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">ampRating</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Breaker" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#CurrentFlow" />
<rdfs:comment>"Fault interrupting rating in amperes"</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Property>
CIM/XML uses only a subset of the complete RDF/XML syntax, in order to
simplify serialization of models. In addition, CIM/XML implements some
extensions to the RDF Schema vocabulary (defined in the cims:
namespace) to support inverse roles and multiplicity (cardinality)
constraints describing how many instances of a given property are allowed for
a given resource from the CIM UML diagrams (allowable values for a
multiplicity declaration are zero-or-one, exactly-one, zero-or-more,
one-or-more). The following properties illustrate these extensions:
<rdf:Property rdf:ID="Breaker.OperatedBy">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">OperatedBy</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Breaker" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#ProtectionEquipment" />
<cims:inverseRoleName rdf:resource="#ProtectionEquipment.Operates" />
<cims:multiplicity rdf:resource="http://www.cim-logic.com/schema/990530#M:0..n" />
<rdfs:comment>"Circuit breakers may be operated by
protection relays."</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Property>
<rdf:Property rdf:ID="ProtectionEquipment.Operates">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Operates</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ProtectionEquipment" />
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Breaker" />
<cims:inverseRoleName rdf:resource="#Breaker.OperatedBy" />
<cims:multiplicity rdf:resource="http://www.cim-logic.com/schema/990530#M:0..n" />
<rdfs:comment>"Circuit breakers may be operated by
protection relays."</rdfs:comment>
</rdf:Property>
EPRI has conducted successful interoperability tests using CIM/XML to
exchange real-life, large-scale models (involving, in the case of one test,
data describing over 2000 substations) between a variety of vendor products,
and validating that these models would be correctly interpreted by typical
utility applications. Although the CIM was originally intended for EMS
systems, it is also being extended to support power distribution and other
applications as well.
The Object Management Group has adopted
an object interface standard to access CIM power system models called the
Data Access Facility [DAF]. Like the CIM/XML language,
the DAF is based on the RDF model and shares the same RDFS CIM schema.
However, while CIM/XML enables a model to be exchanged as a document, DAF
enables an application to access the model as a collection of objects.
CIM/XML illustrates the useful role RDF can play in supporting XML-based
exchange of information that is naturally expressed as entity-relationship or
object-oriented classes, attributes, and relationships (even when that
information will not necessarily be Web-accessable). In these cases, RDF
provides a basic structure for the XML in support of identifying objects, and
using them in structured relationships. This connection is illustrated by a
number of applications using RDF/XML for information interchange, as well as
a number of projects investigating linkages between RDF (or ontology
languages such as DAML+OIL) and UML (and its XML representations).
The need for additional declarative power illustrated by the need to add
cardinality constaints to CIM/XML illustrates the type of requirement leading
to the development of more powerful RDF-based schema/ontology languages such
as DAML+OIL or OWL described in Section 5.5.
Such languages may be appropriate in supporting many similar modeling
applications in the future.
Finally, CIM/XML also illustrates an important fact for those looking for
additional examples of "RDF in the Field": sometimes languages are described
as "XML" languages, or systems are described as using "XML", and the "XML"
they are actually using is RDF/XML, i.e., they are RDF applications.
Sometimes it is necessary to go fairly far into the description of the
language or system in order to find this out (in some examples that have been
found, RDF is never explicitly mentioned at all, but sample data clearly
shows it is RDF/XML). Moreover, in applications such as CIM/XML, the RDF that
is created will not be readily found on the Web, since it is intended for
information exchange between software components rather than for general
access (although future scenarios could be imagined in which more of this
type of RDF would become Web-accessible).
6.7 Gene Ontology Consortium
As Section 6.4 suggests, structured metadata using controlled vocabularies
plays an important role in medicine, enabling efficient literature searches
and aiding in the distribution and exchange of medical knowledge. At the same
time, the field of medicine is rapidly changing, and with that comes the need
to develop additional vocabularies.
The objective of the Gene
Ontology (GO) Consortium is to provide controlled vocabularies to
describe specific aspects of gene products. Collaborating databases annotate
their gene products (or genes) with GO terms, providing references and
indicating what kind of evidence is available to support the annotations. The
use of common GO terms by these databases facilitates uniform queries across
them. The GO ontologies are structured to allow both attribution and querying
to be performed at different levels of granularity. The GO vocabularies are
dynamic, since knowledge of gene and protein roles in cells is accumulating
and changing.
The three organizing principles of the GO are molecular function,
biological process and cellular component. A gene product has one or more
molecular functions and is used in one or more biological processes; it may
be, or may be associated with, one or more cellular components. Definitions
of the terms within all three of these ontologies are contained in a single
(text) definition file. XML (actually, RDF/XML) formatted versions,
containing all three ontology files and all available definitions, are
generated monthly.
Function, process and component are represented as directed acyclic graphs
(DAGs) or networks. A child term may be an "instance" of its parent term (isa
relationship) or a component of its parent term (part-of relationship). A
child term may have more than one parent term and may have a different class
of relationship with its different parents. Synonyms and cross-references to
external databases are also represented in the ontologies. RDF was chosen for
use in the XML versions of the ontologies because of its flexibility in
representing these graph structures, as well as its widespread tool
support.
The following is a sample from the GO
documentation:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE go:go>
<go:go xmlns:go="http://www.geneontology.org/xml-dtd/go.dtd#"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<go:version timestamp="Wed May 9 23:55:02 2001" />
<rdf:RDF>
<go:term rdf:about="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0003673">
<go:accession>GO:0003673</go:accession>
<go:name>Gene_Ontology</go:name>
<go:definition></go:definition>
</go:term>
<go:term rdf:about="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0003674">
<go:accession>GO:0003674</go:accession>
<go:name>molecular_function</go:name>
<go:definition>The action characteristic of a gene product.</go:definition>
<go:part-of rdf:resource="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0003673" />
<go:dbxref>
<go:database_symbol>go</go:database_symbol>
<go:reference>curators</go:reference>
</go:dbxref>
</go:term>
<go:term rdf:about="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0016209">
<go:accession>GO:0016209</go:accession>
<go:name>antioxidant</go:name>
<go:definition></go:definition>
<go:isa rdf:resource="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0003674" />
<go:association>
<go:evidence evidence_code="ISS">
<go:dbxref>
<go:database_symbol>fb</go:database_symbol>
<go:reference>fbrf0105495</go:reference>
</go:dbxref>
</go:evidence>
<go:gene_product>
<go:name>CG7217</go:name>
<go:dbxref>
<go:database_symbol>fb</go:database_symbol>
<go:reference>FBgn0038570</go:reference>
</go:dbxref>
</go:gene_product>
</go:association>
<go:association>
<go:evidence evidence_code="ISS">
<go:dbxref>
<go:database_symbol>fb</go:database_symbol>
<go:reference>fbrf0105495</go:reference>
</go:dbxref>
</go:evidence>
<go:gene_product>
<go:name>Jafrac1</go:name>
<go:dbxref>
<go:database_symbol>fb</go:database_symbol>
<go:reference>FBgn0040309</go:reference>
</go:dbxref>
</go:gene_product>
</go:association>
</go:term>
</rdf:RDF>
</go:go>
The example illustrates that go:term is the basic element. The GO
has added its own extensions to the RDF vocabulary (they do not use RDFS).
For example, term GO:0016209 has the element <go:isa
rdf:resource="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0003674" />. This tag
represents the relationship "GO:0016209 isa GO:0003674", or, in English,
"Antioxidant is a molecular function." Another specialized relationship is
go:part-of. For example, GO:0003674 has the element
<go:part-of rdf:resource="http://www.geneontology.org/go#GO:0003673"
/>. This says that "Molecular function is part of the Gene
Ontology".
Every annotation must be attributed to a source, which may be a literature
reference, another database or a computational analysis. The annotation must
indicate what kind of evidence is found in the cited source to support the
association between the gene product and the GO term. A simple controlled
vocabulary is used to record evidence. Examples include:
- ISS means "inferred from sequence similarity [with ]"
- IDA means "inferred from direct assay"
- TAS means "traceable author statement"
The go:dbxref element represents the term in an external
database, and go:association represents the gene associations of
each term. go:association can have both go:evidence, which
holds a go:dbxref to the evidence supporting the association, and a
go:gene_product, which contains the gene symbol and
go:dbxref.
The GO illustrates a number of interesting points. First, it shows that
the value of using XML for information exchange can be enhanced by
structuring that XML using RDF. This is particularly true for data that has a
graph or network structure, rather than being a strict hierarchy. The GO is
also another example in which the RDF will not necessarily appear for direct
use on the Web (although the files are Web-accessible). It is also another
example of data which is, on the surface, described as "XML", but on closer
examination is RDF/XML. In addition, the GO illustrates the role RDF can play
as a basis for representing ontologies. This role will be further enhanced
once richer RDF-based languages for specifying ontologies, such as DAML+OIL
or OWL, become more widely used.
6.8 Adobe's XMP
Metadata is becoming increasingly important in all types of publishing.
Documents containing metadata can greatly increase the utility of managed
assets in collaborative production workflows. The eXtensible Metadata
Platform (XMP) provides Adobe applications and workflow partners with a
common XML framework that standardizes the creation, processing, and
interchange of document metadata across publishing workflows.
XMP encompasses the following: framework, schema, XMP packet technology,
and the XMP
Software Development Kit, which is available as an open-source license.
XMP is based on RDF.
XMP embeds metadata inside application files. Because the metadata is
enclosed within the file, documents retain their context when they leave
their original system or environment. The embedded metadata can include any
XML schema, provided it is described in RDF syntax. Extensible, embedded
metadata in application files provides significant potential for repurposing,
archiving, and automation in publishing workflows.
Available as an open-source license, XMP can be integrated into any system
or application. Adobe has integrated the XMP framework into Adobe? Photoshop?
7.0, Adobe
Acrobat? 5.0, Adobe FrameMaker
7.0, Adobe
GoLive? 6.0, Adobe InCopy 2.0,
Adobe InDesign
2.0, Adobe
Illustrator 10, and Adobe LiveMotion
2.0.
Industry support for the XMP framework comes from companies such as
Documentum, IBM, Kodak, KPMG, North Plains Systems, and many others.
Additional information on Adobe's XMP can be found in A Manager s
Introduction to Adobe eXtensible Metadata Platform, The Adobe XML Metadata
Framework
In Section 1, we indicated that the RDF Specification consists of a number
of documents (in addition to this Primer): Closed set. reword to make
open.
We have already discussed the subjects of the first three of these
documents, basic RDF concepts (in Section 2), the
RDF/XML syntax (in Section 3) and RDF Schema (in Section 5). In this section, we briefly describe the
remaining documents, in order to explain their role in the complete
specification of RDF.
RDF is being developed as part of the W3C's Semantic Web Activity . As described in
the Semantic Web Activity
Statement,
The Semantic Web is an extension of the current Web in which information is
given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in
cooperation. It is the idea of having data on the Web defined and linked in
a way that it can be used for more effective discovery, automation,
integration, and reuse across various applications. The Web can reach its
full potential if it becomes a place where data can be shared and processed
by automated tools as well as by people.
RDF is a language designed to support the Semantic Web, in much the same
way that HTML is the language that helped initiate the original Web. In order
to serve this purpose, the meaning of RDF statements must be defined in a
very precise manner. Suggest delete.
The point of the model theory is to define a precise semantics for the
language. Whilst that might be more critical given the semantic web, I think
we'd want it anyway.
The RDF Model Theory [RDF-MODEL]
provides this precise definition, using a technique known to logicians as a
"model-theoretic semantics". A model-theoretic semantics for a language
assumes that the language refers to a 'world', and describes the minimal
conditions that a world must satisfy in order to assign an appropriate
meaning for every expression in the language. A particular world is called an
interpretation, so that model theory might be better called
'interpretation theory'. The idea is to provide an abstract, mathematical
account of the properties that any such interpretation must have, making as
few assumptions as possible about its actual nature or intrinsic structure.
The RDF model theory is couched in the language of set theory because that is
the normal language of mathematics - for example, the model theory assumes
that names denote things in a set IR called the 'universe' - but the
use of set-theoretic language in the RDF model theory is not supposed to
imply that the things in the universe are set-theoretic in nature.
The chief utility of such a semantic theory is not to suggest any
particular processing model, or to provide any deep analysis of the nature of
the things being described by the language (in the case of RDF, the nature of
resources), but rather to provide a technical tool to analyze the semantic
properties of proposed operations on the language; in particular, to provide
a way to determine when they preserve meaning.
The RDF model theory treats RDF as a simple assertional language, in which
each triple makes a distinct assertion, and the meaning of any triple is not
changed by adding other triples. Based on the semantics defined in the model
theory, it is simple to translate an RDF graph into a logical expression with
essentially the same meaning.
In other words, the RDF model theory provides the formal underpinnings for
all of the concepts we have described. I like this para. The quotes from the model
theory doc seem a bit heavy in this context. A short para, maybe a little
longer than one sentence, saying we have a formal spec of the semantics. Go
read.
The RDF
Test Cases [RDF-TESTS] supplement the
textual RDF specifications with specific examples of RDF/XML syntax and the
corresponding RDF graph triples. Too
specific to the parser tests. Should have a more general statement then list
the sort of test to expect to find there. The RDF Test Cases
[RDF-TESTS] specification suppliments the other specifications with examples
that illustrate key choices made in the design of RDF and RDFS. To
describe these examples, it introduces the N-triples
notation referred to in earlier sections of this Primer as a trivially simple and unambiguous way of writing
down RDF graphs. . The test cases themselves delete "themselves" are also
delete "also" published
in machine-readable form at Web locations referenced by the Test Cases
document, so developers can use these as the basis for some automated testing
of RDF software.
The Test Cases document also contains a number of "entailment tests",
which indicate entailments (conclusions) that applications are allowed by the
RDF specifications to draw from RDF data.
The test cases are not a complete specification of RDF, and are not
intended to take precedence over the normative specification documents.
However, they are intended to illustrate the intent of the RDF Core Working
Group with respect to the design of RDF, and developers may find these test
cases helpful should the wording of the specifications be unclear on any
point of detail.
- [RDF-CONCEPTS]
- RDF Concepts
and Abstract Data Model, G. Klyne and J. Carroll, Editors.
Work in progress. World Wide Web Consortium, 29 August 2002. This
version of the RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/. The latest
version of the RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model is at
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html/.
- [RDF-MODEL]
- RDF
Model Theory, P. Hayes, Editor. Work in progress. World Wide
Web Consortium, 14 February 2002. This version of the RDF Model Theory
is http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020214. The latest version of the RDF Model
Theory is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.
- [RDF-MS]
- Resource
Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification,
O. Lassila and R. Swick, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium. 22
February 1999. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of RDF
M&S is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.
- [RDF-SCHEMA]
- RDF Vocabulary
Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, D. Brickley and R. V.
Guha, Editors. Work in progress, April 2002. World Wide Web Consortium,
30 April 2002. This version of RDF Schema is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20020430/. The latest version of RDF
Schema is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
- [RDF-TESTS]
- RDF Test
Cases, A. Barstow and D. Beckett, Editors. Work in progress.
World Wide Web Consortium, 15 November 2001. This version of the RDF
Test Cases is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-testcases-20011115/. The
latest version of the RDF
Test Cases is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases.
- [RDF-XML]
- RDF/XML
Syntax Specification (Revised), D. Beckett, Editor. Work in
progress. World Wide Web Consortium, 25 March 2002. This version of the
RDF/XML Syntax Specification is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20020325/. The latest version of the
RDF Test Cases is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar.
- [XML]
- Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0, Second Edition, T. Bray, J.
Paoli, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen and E. Maler, Editors. World Wide Web
Consortium. 6 October 2000. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006. latest version of XML is
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.
- [XML-NS]
- Namespaces in
XML, T. Bray, D. Hollander and A. Layman, Editors. World
Wide Web Consortium. 14 January 1999. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114. The latest version of Namespaces
in XML is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names.
- [XML-BASE]
- XML
Base, J. Marsh, Editor, W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web
Consortium, 27 June 2001. This version of XML Base is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/. The latest version of XML Base is
at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/.
- [URI]
- RFC 2396 -
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, T.
Berners-Lee, R. Fielding and L. Masinter, IETF, August 1998. This
document is http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt.
- [ADDRESS-SCHEMES]
- Addressing
Schemes, D. Connolly, 2001. This document is
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html.
- [BATES96]
- Indexing and
Access for Digital Libraries and the Internet: Human, Database, and
Domain Factors, M. J. Bates, 1996. This document is
http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/research/mjbates.html.
- [BERNERS-LEE98]
- What the
Semantic Web can represent, T. Berners-Lee, 1998. This
document is http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot.html.
- [CC/PP]
- Composite
Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and
Vocabularies, G. Klyne, F. Reynolds, C. Woodrow, H. Ohto,
World Wide Web Consortium Working Draft, work in progress, 15 March
2001. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20010315/. The latest version of CC/PP
structure and Vocabularies is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab.
- [COWAN02]
- Metadata,
Reuters Health Information, and Cross-Media Publishing, J.
Cowan, 2002. Presentation at Seybold New York 2002 Enterprise
Publishing Conference. This document is
http://seminars.seyboldreports.com/seminars/2002_new_york/presentations/014/cowan_john.ppt.
An accompanying transcript is
http://seminars.seyboldreports.com/seminars/2002_new_york/transcripts/doc/transcript_EP7.doc
- [DAF]
- Utility
Management System (UMS) Data Access Facility, Object
Management Group, OMG document formal/01-06-01, June 2001. This
document is http://cgi.omg.org/docs/formal/01-06-01.pdf.
- [DAML+OIL]
- DAML+OIL
(March 2001) Reference Description, D. Connolly, F. van
Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, L. A.
Stein, W3C Note 18 December 2001. This document is
http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference.
- [DC]
- Dublin Core
Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description, 02
July 1999. This document is http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
- [DWZ01]
- XML for CIM Model
Exchange, A. deVos, S.E. Widergreen, and J. Zhu, Proc. IEEE
Conference on Power Industry Computer Systems, Sydney, Australia, 2001.
This document is available at http://www.langdale.com.au/PICA/.
- [MCF]
- Meta Content
Framework Using XML, R. V. Guha, T. Bray, W3C Note 6 June
1997. This document is http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML/.
- [NAMEADDRESS]
- Naming and Addressing:
URIs, URLs, ..., D. Connolly, 2002. This document is
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/.
- [OWL]
- OWL
Web Ontology Language 1.0 Reference. M. Dean, D. Connolly,
F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F.
Patel-Schneider, and L. Andrea Stein, eds. W3C Working Draft 29 July
2002. This version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-ref-20020729/. The latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/.
- [PRISM]
- PRISM:
Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata,
Version 1.1, 19 February 2002. This document is
http://www.prismstandard.org/techdev/prismspec11.asp.
- [RDFINHTML]
- RDF in HTML:
Approaches, S. Palmer, 2002-06-02. This document is
http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/.
- [RDFISSUE]
- RDF Issue
Tracking, B. McBride, 2002. This document is
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/.
- RDF Site Summary (RSS)
1.0, G. Beged-Dov, D. Brickley, R. Dornfest, I. Davis, L.
Dodds, J. Eisenzopf, D. Galbraith, R.V. Guha, K. MacLeod, E. Miller, A.
Swartz, E. van der Vlist, 2000. This document is
http://purl.org/rss/1.0/spec.
- [WEBDATA]
- Web Architecture:
Describing and Exchanging Data, T. Berners-Lee, D. Connolly,
and R. Swick, W3C Note, 7 June 1999. This document is
http://www.w3.org/1999/04/WebData.
- [XLINK]
- XML Linking Language
(XLink) Version 1.0, S. DeRose, E. Maler, and D. Orchard,
Editors. World Wide Web Consortium. 27 June 2001. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/.
- [XML-SCHEMA2]
- XML Schema Part 2:
Datatypes, P. Biron and A. Malhotra, Editors. World Wide Web
Consortium. 2 May 2001. This version is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/. The latest version
is http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
- [XPACKAGE]
- XML Package
(XPackage) 1.0, G. Wilson, Open eBook Forum Editor's Working
Draft, 26 March 2002. This document is
http://www.xpackage.org/specification/.
This document has benefited from inputs from many members of the RDF Core Working Group.
Specific thanks to Dave Beckett, Dan Brickley, Ron Daniel, Ben Hammersley,
Martyn Horner, Graham Klyne, Sean Palmer, Patrick Stickler, Aaron Swartz,
Ralph Swick, and Garret Wilson, who provided valuable contributions to this
document.
In addition, this document contains a significant contribution from Pat
Hayes, Sergey Melnik, and Patrick Stickler, who led the development of the
RDF datatype facilities described in the RDF family of specifications.
Changes since the 26 April 2002
Working Draft:
- Added Appendix A.
- Miscellaneous formatting corrections.
- Introduced abbreviated notation for triples and made corresponding
changes to the examples.
- Divided References into Normative and Informational References, added
references, and corrected format.
- Added additional material on URIs and discussion about fragment
identifiers.
- Changed many references from "URI" to "URIref" to clarify the
distinction made in the above material.
- Corrected material on rdf:ID and rdf:about, and on
parseType="Resource", in Section 3.
- Added material on xml:base and basic serialization syntax to Section
3.
- Added material on rdf:type and RDF/XML abbreviations to Section 3.
- Corrected material on RDF capabilities in the Abstract and Section
1.
- Added material on reification, rdf:value, Boolean values, and RDF in
HTML, and added a new section to hold it.
- Rewrote the RDF Schema material to emphasize its descriptive
role, and to include how xml:base might be used, and changed its
placement.
- Added an example to Section 2 illustrating the use of blank nodes to
model things that don't naturally have URIs.
- Added a brief description of metadata to the Dublin Core section.
- Added material on RHI to Section 6.4, and added Sections 6.5, 6.6, 6.7,
and 6.8 describing further examples of RDF usage.
- Added material on typed literals as Section 2.5 and in Section 3.1, and
material on using datatypes in schemas in Section 5.2.
- Added coverage of rdf:parseType="Literal" to Section 3.3.
- Rewrote Section 4 to better described RDF containers, and added
coverage of RDF Lists.
- Added the Concepts document to the list of RDF specifications, and
added a short description of it to Section 7.
