The
Resource
Description
Framework
(RDF)
is
a
framework
for
representing
information
in
the
Web.
This
document
RDF
Concepts
and
Abstract
Syntax
defines
an
abstract
syntax
on
which
RDF
is
based,
and
which
serves
to
link
its
concrete
syntax
to
its
formal
semantics.
It
also
includes
discussion
of
design
goals,
deleted text:
meaning
of
RDF
documents,
key
concepts,
datatyping,
character
normalization
and
handling
of
URI
references.
This
section
describes
the
status
of
this
document
at
the
time
of
its
publication.
Other
documents
may
supersede
this
document.
A
list
of
current
W3C
publications
and
the
latest
revision
of
this
technical
report
can
be
found
in
the
W3C
technical
reports
index
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This
is
a
W3C
Last
Call
Working
Draft
of
the
RDF
Core
Working
Group
and
has
been
produced
as
part
of
the
W3C
Semantic
Web
Activity
(
Activity
Statement
).
A
recent
change
prohibits
control
characters
in
RDF
URI
References.
A
second
change
weakens
the
language
concerning
Unicode
Normal
Form
C.
Detailed
changes
from
the
previous
05
September
2003
Working
Draft
are
described
in
the
changes
section
.
These
are
in
addition
to
the
changes
between
the
23
January
2003
and
the
05
September
2003
Working
Drafts.
This
document
is
in
the
Last
Call
review
period,
which
ends
on
21
February
07
November
2003.
This
Last
Call
publication
consolidates
changes
and
editorial
improvements
undertaken
in
response
to
feedback
received
during
the
previous
Last
Call
publication
of
the
RDFCore
specifications
which
began
on
23
January
2003.
A
list
of
the
Last
Call
issues
addressed
by
the
Working
Group
is
also
available.
This
document
has
been
endorsed
by
the
RDF
Core
Working
Group.
This
document
is
being
released
for
review
by
W3C
Members
and
other
interested
parties
to
encourage
feedback
and
comments,
especially
with
regard
to
how
the
changes
made
affect
existing
implementations
and
content.
In
conformance
with
W3C
policy
requirements,
known
patent
and
IPR
constraints
associated
with
this
Working
Draft
are
detailed
on
the
RDF
Core
Working
Group
Patent
Disclosure
page.
Comments
on
this
document
are
invited
and
should
be
sent
to
the
public
mailing
list
www-rdf-comments@w3.org
.
An
archive
of
comments
is
available
at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/
.
This
is
Publication
as
a
deleted text:
public
W3C
Last
Call
Working
Draft
for
review
does
not
imply
endorsement
by
the
W3C
Members
and
other
interested
parties.
Membership.
This
deleted text:
section
describes
the
status
of
this
document
at
the
time
of
its
publication.
It
is
a
draft
document
and
may
be
updated,
replaced,
replaced
or
obsoleted
by
other
documents
at
any
time.
It
is
inappropriate
to
deleted text:
use
W3C
Working
Drafts
as
reference
material
or
to
cite
this
document
as
other
than
"work
work
in
progress".
progress.
A
list
of
current
W3C
Recommendations
and
other
technical
documents
can
be
found
at
<a href="/TR/">
http://www.w3.org/TR/
</a>.
http://www.w3.org/TR/.
The
Resource
Description
Framework
(RDF)
is
a
framework
for
representing
information
in
the
Web.
This
document
defines
an
abstract
syntax
on
which
RDF
is
based,
and
which
serves
to
link
its
concrete
syntax
to
its
formal
semantics.
This
abstract
syntax
is
quite
distinct
from
XML's
tree-based
infoset
[
XML-INFOSET
].
It
also
includes
discussion
of
design
goals,
deleted text:
meaning
of
RDF
documents,
key
concepts,
datatyping,
character
normalization
and
handling
of
URI
references.
Normative
documentation
of
deleted text:
the
RDF
deleted text:
core
falls
into
the
following
areas:
-
XML
serialization
syntax
[
RDF-SYNTAX
],
-
formal
semantics
[
RDF-SEMANTICS
],
and
-
this
document.
document,
(sections
4,
5
and
6).
Within
this
document,
normative
sections
are
explicitly
labelled
as
such.
Explicit
notes
are
informative.
The
framework
is
designed
so
that
vocabularies
can
be
layered
on
top
of
a
core.
layered.
The
RDF
deleted text:
core
and
RDF
vocabulary
definition
(RDF
schema)
languages
[
RDF-VOCABULARY
]
are
the
first
such
vocabularies.
Others
(cf.
OWL
[
OWL
]
and
the
applications
mentioned
in
the
primer
[
RDF-PRIMER
])
are
in
development.
In
section
2
,
the
background
rationale
and
design
goals
are
introduced.
Key
concepts
follow
in
section
3
.
The
meaning
of
RDF
is
discussed
in
<a href="#section-Meaning">
section
Section
4
</a>,
including
discussion
of
social
mechanisms,
the
interaction
between
social
and
formal
meaning
and
the
implications
of
publication
of
an
RDF
document.
discusses
URI
references
reserved
for
use
by
RDF.
RDF's
abstract
syntax
is
a
graph,
which
can
be
serialized
using
XML
(but
which
is
quite
distinct
from
XML's
tree-based
infoset
[
<a href="#ref-xml-infoset">
XML-INFOSET
Section
5
]).
The
abstract
syntax
captures
the
fundamental
structure
of
RDF,
independently
of
any
concrete
syntax
used
for
serialization.
The
formal
semantics
of
RDF
are
defined
in
terms
of
the
abstract
syntax.
discusses
datatypes.
XML
content
of
literals
is
described
in
section
5
5.1
,
and
the
abstract
syntax
is
defined
in
section
6
of
this
document.
Section
7
discusses
the
role
of
fragment
identifiers
in
URI
references
used
with
RDF.
RDF
has
an
abstract
syntax
that
reflects
a
simple
graph-based
data
model,
and
formal
semantics
with
a
rigorously
defined
notion
of
entailment
providing
a
basis
for
well
founded
deductions
in
RDF
data.
The
development
of
RDF
has
been
motivated
by
the
following
uses,
among
others:
-
Web
metadata:
providing
information
about
Web
resources
and
the
systems
that
use
them
(e.g.
content
rating,
capability
descriptions,
privacy
preferences,
etc.)
-
Applications
that
require
open
rather
than
constrained
information
models
(e.g.
scheduling
activities,
describing
organizational
processes,
annotation
of
Web
resources,
etc.)
-
To
do
for
machine
processable
information
(application
data)
what
the
World
Wide
Web
has
done
for
hypertext:
to
allow
data
to
be
processed
outside
the
particular
environment
in
which
it
was
created,
in
a
fashion
that
can
work
at
Internet
scale.
-
Interworking
among
applications:
combining
data
from
several
applications
to
arrive
at
new
information.
-
Automated
processing
of
Web
information
by
software
agents:
the
Web
is
moving
from
having
just
human-readable
information
to
being
a
world-wide
network
of
cooperating
processes.
RDF
provides
a
world-wide
deleted text:
<i>
lingua
franca
deleted text:
</i>
for
these
processes.
RDF
is
designed
to
represent
information
in
a
minimally
constraining,
flexible
way.
It
can
be
used
in
isolated
applications,
where
individually
designed
formats
might
be
more
direct
and
easily
understood,
but
RDF's
generality
offers
greater
value
from
sharing.
The
value
of
information
thus
increases
as
it
becomes
accessible
to
more
applications
across
the
entire
Internet.
The
design
of
RDF
is
intended
to
meet
the
following
goals:
-
A
having
a
simple
data
model
-
Formal
having
formal
semantics
and
provable
inference
-
Extensible
using
an
extensible
URI-based
vocabulary
-
using
an
XML-based
syntax
-
Support
supporting
use
of
XML
schema
datatypes
-
Anyone
can
allowing
anyone
to
make
simple
assertions
statements
about
anything
</li>
<li>
Universal
expression
of
simple
facts
</li>
<li>
A
basis
for
legally
binding
agreements
any
resource
RDF
has
a
simple
data
model
that
is
easy
for
applications
to
process
and
manipulate.
The
data
model
is
independent
of
any
specific
serialization
syntax.
Note:
the
term
"model"
used
here
in
"data
model"
has
a
completely
different
sense
to
its
use
in
the
term
"model
theory".
See
deleted text:
the
RDF
model
theory
specification
[
RDF-SEMANTICS
]
for
more
information
about
"model
theory"
as
used
in
the
literature
of
mathematics
and
logic.
RDF
has
a
formal
semantics
which
provides
a
dependable
basis
for
reasoning
about
the
meaning
of
an
RDF
expression.
In
particular,
it
supports
rigorously
defined
notions
of
entailment
which
provide
a
basis
for
defining
reliable
rules
of
inference
in
RDF
data.
The
vocabulary
is
fully
extensible,
being
based
on
URIs
with
optional
fragment
identifiers
(
URI
references
,
or
URIrefs
).
URI
references
are
used
for
naming
all
kinds
of
things
in
RDF.
The
other
kind
of
value
that
appears
in
RDF
data
is
a
literal.
RDF
has
a
recommended
XML
serialization
form
[
RDF-SYNTAX
],
which
can
be
used
to
encode
the
data
model
for
exchange
of
information
among
applications.
RDF
can
use
values
represented
according
to
XML
schema
datatypes
[
XML-SCHEMA2
],
thus
assisting
the
exchange
of
information
between
RDF
and
other
XML
applications.
To
facilitate
operation
at
Internet
scale,
RDF
is
an
open-world
framework
that
allows
anyone
to
make
simple
assertions
statements
about
anything.
any
resource.
In
general,
it
is
not
assumed
that
all
complete
information
about
any
topic
resource
is
available.
deleted text:
A
consequence
of
this
is
that
RDF
cannot
does
not
prevent
anyone
from
making
assertions
that
are
nonsensical
or
inconsistent
with
other
statements,
or
the
world
as
people
see
it,
and
it.
Designers
of
applications
that
build
upon
use
RDF
need
to
find
ways
should
be
aware
of
this
and
may
design
their
applications
to
deal
with
tolerate
incomplete
and
conflicting
or
inconsistent
sources
of
information.
deleted text:
(This
is
where
RDF
departs
from
more
prescriptive
approaches
to
representing
data
in
XML,
which
aim
to
present
information
that
is
well-formed
and
complete
for
an
application's
needs.)
</p>
<h4>
<a id="section-expression-simple" name="section-expression-simple">
2.2.7
Arbitrary
Expression
of
Simple
Facts
</a>
</h4>
<p>
RDF
can
represent
arbitrary
information
that
can
be
expressed
as
simple
facts.
(What
constitutes
a
simple
fact
is
discussed
later,
in
<a href="#section-SimpleFacts">
section
3.5
</a>
)
</p>
<h4>
<a id="section-agreements" name="section-agreements">
2.2.8
A
Basis
for
Binding
Agreements
</a>
</h4>
<p>
RDF
is
intended
to
convey
assertions
that
are
meaningful
to
the
extent
that
they
may,
in
appropriate
contexts,
be
used
to
express
the
terms
of
binding
agreements.
</p>
<p>
This
goal
is
explored
further
in
<a href= "#section-Social">
section
4.2
</a>
below.
RDF
uses
the
following
key
concepts:
-
Graph
data
model
-
URI-based
vocabulary
-
Datatypes
-
Literals
-
XML
serialization
syntax
-
Information
as
representation
Expression
of
simple
facts
-
Entailment
The
underlying
structure
of
any
expression
in
RDF
can
be
viewed
as
is
a
directed
labelled
graph,
which
consists
collection
of
nodes
triples,
each
consisting
of
a
subject,
a
predicate
and
labelled
directed
arcs
that
link
pairs
an
object.
A
set
of
nodes
(these
notions
are
defined
such
triples
is
called
an
RDF
graph
(defined
more
formally
in
section
6
).
The
RDF
graph
This
can
be
illustrated
by
a
node
and
directed-arc
diagram,
in
which
each
triple
is
represented
as
a
set
of
triples:
node-arc-node
link
(hence
the
term
"graph").
<img src="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/Graph-ex.gif" alt= "image of the RDF triple comprising (subject, predicate, object)" height="72" width="361" />
Each
property
arc
triple
represents
a
statement
of
a
relationship
between
the
things
denoted
by
the
nodes
that
it
links,
having
links.
Each
triple
has
three
parts:
-
a
<a href="#dfn-property" >
property
</a>
that
describes
some
relationship
(also
called
a
<a href="#dfn-predicate" >
predicate
</a>
),
subject
,
-
a
value
that
is
the
<a href="#dfn-subject" >
subject
</a>
of
the
statement,
an
object
,
and
-
a
value
that
is
the
<a href="#dfn-object" >
object
predicate
of
the
statement.
(also
called
a
property
)
that
denotes
a
relationship.
The
direction
of
the
arc
is
significant:
it
always
points
toward
the
object
object.
The
nodes
of
a
statement.
an
RDF
graph
are
its
subjects
and
objects.
The
assertion
of
an
RDF
triple
says
that
some
relationship,
indicated
by
the
predicate,
holds
between
the
things
denoted
by
subject
and
object
of
the
triple.
The
assertion
of
an
RDF
graph
amounts
to
asserting
all
the
triples
in
it,
so
the
meaning
of
an
RDF
graph
is
the
conjunction
(i.e.
logical
(logical
AND)
of
deleted text:
all
the
statements
that
corresponding
to
all
the
triples
it
contains.
A
formal
account
of
the
meaning
of
RDF
graphs
is
given
in
[
RDF-SEMANTICS
].
<a href="#section-Graph-Node" >
Nodes
</a>
in
an
RDF
graph
are
URIs
A
node
may
be
a
URI
with
optional
fragment
identifiers
identifier
(
<a href="#dfn-URI-reference" >
URI
references
reference
,
or
<a id= "dfn-URIref" name="dfn-URIref">
URIrefs
URIref
),
literals,
a
literal,
or
blank
(having
no
separate
form
of
identification).
Arcs
Properties
are
deleted text:
labelled
with
URI
references
.
(See
[
<a href= "#ref-uris">
URI
],
section
4,
for
a
description
of
URI
reference
forms,
noting
that
relative
URIs
are
not
used
in
an
RDF
graph.
See
also
section
6.4
.)
The
A
URI
reference
or
literal
used
as
a
node
identifies
what
that
node
represents.
The
label
on
an
arc
A
URI
reference
used
as
a
predicate
identifies
the
a
relationship
between
the
nodes
connected
things
represented
by
the
arc.
The
arc
label
nodes
it
connects.
A
predicate
URI
reference
may
also
be
a
node
in
the
graph.
A
<a href="#dfn-blank-node" >
blank
node
is
an
RDF
graph
a
node
that
is
not
a
URI
reference
or
a
literal.
In
the
RDF
abstract
syntax,
a
blank
node
is
just
a
unique
node
that
can
be
used
in
one
or
more
RDF
statements,
and
has
no
globally
distinguishing
identity.
A
convention
used
by
some
linear
representations
of
an
RDF
graph
to
allow
several
statements
to
reference
the
same
blank
node
unidentified
resource
is
to
use
a
blank
node
identifier
,
which
is
a
local
identifier
that
can
be
distinguished
from
all
URIs
and
literals.
When
graphs
are
merged,
their
blank
nodes
must
be
kept
distinct
if
meaning
is
to
be
preserved;
this
may
call
for
re-allocation
of
blank
node
identifiers.
deleted text:
</p>
<p>
Note
that
such
blank
node
identifiers
are
deleted text:
<em>
not
deleted text:
</em>
part
of
the
RDF
abstract
syntax,
and
the
representation
of
statements
that
use
triples
containing
blank
nodes
is
entirely
dependent
on
the
particular
concrete
syntax
used.
Datatypes
are
used
by
RDF
in
the
representation
of
values
such
as
integers,
floating
point
numbers
and
dates.
deleted text:
RDF
uses
the
datatype
abstraction
defined
by
XML
Schema
Part
2:
Datatypes
[
<a href="#ref-xml-schema2">
XML-SCHEMA2
</a>
],
and
may
be
used
with
any
datatype
definition
that
conforms
to
this
abstraction,
even
if
not
actually
defined
in
terms
of
XML
Schema.
</p>
<p>
A
deleted text:
<dfn>
<a id="dfn-datatype-mapping" name= "dfn-datatype-mapping">
datatype
mapping
</a>
</dfn>
is
a
set
of
pairs
whose
first
element
belongs
to
the
<dfn>
<a id="dfn-lexical-space" name="dfn-lexical-space">
lexical
space
</a>
</dfn>
of
the
datatype,
and
the
second
element
belongs
to
the
<dfn>
<a id="dfn-value-space" name="dfn-value-space">
value
space
</a>
</dfn>
of
the
datatype:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
Each
member
of
the
<cite>
lexical
space
</cite>
is
paired
with
(maps
to)
exactly
one
member
of
the
<cite>
value
space
</cite>.
</li>
<li>
Each
member
of
the
<cite>
value
space
</cite>
may
be
paired
with
any
number
(including
zero)
of
members
consists
of
deleted text:
the
<cite>
lexical
space
</cite>
(lexical
representations
for
that
value).
</li>
</ul>
<p>
With
one
exception,
the
datatypes
used
in
RDF
have
a
deleted text:
<var>
<cite>
lexical
space
</cite>
</var>
consisting
of
space,
a
set
of
strings.
The
exception
is
<a href= "#dfn-rdf-XMLLiteral" class="code">
rdf:XMLLiteral
</a>,
whose
lexical
value
space
deleted text:
also
includes
pairs
of
strings
and
language
identifiers.
The
value
obtained
through
its
datatype
mapping
may
depend
on
the
language
identifier.
a
lexical-to-value
mapping,
see
section
5
.
For
example,
the
datatype
lexical-to-value
mapping
for
the
XML
Schema
datatype
xsd:boolean
,
where
each
member
of
the
value
space
(represented
here
as
'T'
and
'F')
has
two
lexical
representations,
is
as
follows:
|
Value
Space
|
{T,
F}
|
|
Lexical
Space
|
{"0",
"1",
"true",
"false"}
|
|
Datatype
Lexical-to-Value
Mapping
|
{<"true",
T>,
<"1",
T>,
<"0",
F>,
<"false",
F>}
|
RDF
predefines
just
one
datatype
rdf:XMLLiteral
,
used
for
embedding
XML
in
RDF
(see
section
5
5.1
).
There
is
no
built-in
concept
of
numbers
or
dates
or
other
common
values.
Rather,
RDF
defers
to
datatypes
that
are
defined
separately,
and
identified
with
URI
references.The
references.
The
predefined
XML
Schema
datatypes
[
XML-SCHEMA2
]
are
expected
to
be
widely
used
for
this
purpose.
deleted text:
Certain
XML
Schema
built-in
datatypes
are
not
suitable
for
use
within
RDF.
For
example,
the
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#QName">
QName
</a>
datatype
requires
a
namespace
declaration
to
be
in
scope
during
the
mapping,
and
is
not
recommended
for
use
in
RDF.
</p>
<p>
The
defining
authority
of
a
URI
which
identifies
a
datatype
is
responsible
for
specifying
the
datatype's
lexical
space,
value
space
and
datatype
mapping.
</p>
<p>
RDF
provides
no
mechanism
for
defining
new
datatypes.
XML
Schema
Datatypes
[
XML-SCHEMA2
]
provides
an
extensibility
framework
suitable
for
defining
new
datatypes
for
use
in
RDF.
Literals
are
used
to
identify
values
such
as
numbers
and
dates
by
means
of
a
lexical
representation.
Anything
represented
by
a
literal
could
also
be
represented
by
a
URI,
but
it
is
often
more
convenient
or
intuitive
to
use
literals.
A
literal
may
be
the
object
of
an
RDF
statement,
but
not
the
subject
or
the
arc.
predicate.
Literals
may
be
plain
or
typed
:
-
A
plain
literal
is
a
string
combined
with
an
optional
language
identifier.
tag.
This
should
may
be
used
for
plain
text
in
a
natural
language.
As
recommended
in
the
RDF
formal
semantics
[
RDF-SEMANTICS
],
these
plain
literals
are
self-denoting.
-
A
typed
literal
is
a
string,
string
combined
with
a
datatype
URI
and
an
optional
language
identifier.
URI.
It
denotes
the
member
of
the
identified
datatype's
value
space
obtained
by
applying
the
datatype
lexical-to-value
mapping
to
the
literal
string.
Continuing
the
example
from
<a href="#section-Datatypes">
section
3.3
,
the
typed
literals
which
that
can
be
defined
using
the
XML
Schema
datatype
xsd:boolean
are:
|
Typed
Literal
|
Datatype
Lexical-to-Value
Mapping
|
Value
|
|
<xsd:boolean,
"true">
|
<"true",
T>
|
T
|
|
<xsd:boolean,
"1">
|
<"1",
T>
|
T
|
|
<xsd:boolean,
"false">
|
<"false",
F>
|
F
|
|
<xsd:boolean,
"0">
|
<"0",
F>
|
F
|
For
text
that
may
contain
markup,
use
typed
literals
with
type
rdf:XMLLiteral
.
If
language
annotation
is
required,
it
must
be
explicitly
included
as
markup,
usually
by
means
of
an
xml:lang
attribute.
[XHTML]
may
be
included
within
RDF
in
this
way.
Sometimes,
in
this
latter
case,
an
additional
span
or
div
element
is
needed
to
carry
an
xml:lang
or
lang
attribute.
The
string
in
both
plain
and
typed
literals
is
recommended
to
be
in
Unicode
Normal
Form
C
[NFC]
.
This
is
motivated
by
[CHARMOD]
particularly
section
4
Early
Uniform
Normalization
.
Some
simple
facts
indicate
a
relationship
between
two
objects.
things.
Such
a
fact
may
be
represented
as
an
RDF
triple
in
which
the
predicate
names
the
relationship,
and
the
subject
and
object
denote
the
two
objects.
things.
A
familiar
representation
of
such
a
fact
might
be
as
a
row
in
a
table
in
a
relational
database.
The
table
has
two
columns,
corresponding
to
the
subject
and
the
object
of
the
RDF
triple.
The
name
of
the
table
corresponds
to
the
predicate
of
the
RDF
triple.
A
further
familiar
representation
may
be
as
a
two
place
predicate
in
first
order
logic.
Relational
databases
permit
a
table
to
have
an
arbitrary
number
of
columns,
a
row
of
which
expresses
information
corresponding
to
a
predicate
in
first
order
logic
with
an
arbitrary
number
of
places.
Such
a
row,
or
predicate,
has
to
be
decomposed
for
representation
as
RDF
triples.
A
simple
form
of
decomposition
introduces
a
new
blank
node,
corresponding
to
the
row,
and
a
new
triple
is
introduced
for
each
cell
in
the
row.
The
subject
of
each
triple
is
the
new
blank
node,
the
predicate
corresponds
to
the
column
name,
and
object
corresponds
to
the
value
in
the
cell.
The
new
blank
node
may
also
have
an
rdf:type
property
whose
value
corresponds
to
the
table
name.
As
an
example,
consider
Figure
5
6
from
the
[
RDF-PRIMER
]:
This
information
might
correspond
to
a
row
in
a
table
"STAFFADDRESSES"
,
with
a
primary
key
STAFFID
,
and
additional
columns
STREET
,
STATE
,
CITY
and
ZIP
POSTALCODE
.
Thus,
a
more
complex
fact
is
expressed
in
RDF
using
a
conjunction
(logical-AND)
of
simple
binary
relationships.
RDF
does
not
provide
means
to
express
negation
(NOT)
or
disjunction
(OR).
deleted text:
The
expressive
power
of
RDF
corresponds
to
the
existential-conjunctive
(EC)
subset
of
first
order
logic
[
<a href= "#ref-sowa">
Sowa
</a>
].
Through
its
use
of
extensible
URI-based
vocabularies,
RDF
provides
for
expression
of
facts
about
arbitrary
subjects;
i.e.
assertions
of
named
properties
about
specific
named
things.
A
URI
can
be
constructed
for
any
thing
that
can
be
named,
so
RDF
facts
can
be
about
any
such
things.
The
ideas
on
meaning
and
inference
in
RDF
are
underpinned
by
the
formal
concept
of
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#entail">
entailment
,
as
discussed
in
the
RDF
semantics
document
[
RDF-SEMANTICS
].
In
brief,
an
RDF
expression
A
is
said
to
entail
another
RDF expression
B
if
every
possible
arrangement
of
things
in
the
world
that
makes
A
true
also
makes
B
true.
On
this
basis,
if
the
truth
of
A
is
presumed
or
demonstrated
then
the
truth
of
B
can
be
inferred
.
<h3>
RDF
uses
URIs
URI
references
to
identify
resources
and
properties.
Certain
URIs
URI
references
are
reserved
for
use
given
specific
meaning
by
RDF,
and
may
not
be
used
for
any
purpose
not
sanctioned
the
RDF
specifications.
RDF.
Specifically,
URIs
URI
references
with
the
following
leading
substrings
substring
are
reserved
for
defined
by
the
RDF
core
vocabulary:
specifications:
-
<span class= "code">
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
(conventionally
associated
with
namespace
prefix
<span class= "code">
rdf:
)
<li>
Used
with
the
RDF/XML
serialization,
these
this
URI
prefix
strings
correspond
string
corresponds
to
XML
namespaces
namespace
names
[
XML-NS
]
associated
with
the
RDF
deleted text:
core
vocabulary
terms.
Note:
these
this
namespace
URIs
are
name
is
the
same
as
those
that
used
in
the
earlier
RDF
documents
recommendation
[
RDF-MS
deleted text:
]
[
<a href="#ref-rdf-schema">
RDF-SCHEMA
</a>
].
deleted text:
<p class="todo">
[[[
<b>
NOTE
FOR REVIEWERS:
</b>
Some
terms
in
these
namespaces
have
been
deprecated,
some
have
been
added,
and
some
RDF
schema
terms
have
had
their
meaning
changed.
We
invite
community
feedback
regarding
the
relative
costs
of
adopting
these
changes
under
the
old
namespace
URIs
vs
creating
new
URIs
for
this
revision
of
RDF.]]]
</p>
Vocabulary
terms
in
the
rdf:
namespace
are
listed
in
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace">
section
5.1
of
the
RDF
syntax
specification
[
<a href= "#ref-rdf-syntax">
RDF-SYNTAX
].
</p>
<p>
Vocabulary
Some
of
these
terms
deleted text:
defined
in
the
<span class="code">
rdfs:
</span>
namespace
are
defined
in
by
the
RDF
schema
vocabulary
specification
[
<a href= "#ref-rdf-vocabulary">
specifications
to
denote
specific
concepts.
Others
have
syntactic
purpose
(e.g.
rdf:ID
is
part
of
the
RDF/XML
syntax).
<a id="section-Meaning" name="section-Meaning">
4.
Meaning
of
RDF
5.
Datatypes
(Normative)
There
are
two
aspects
to
the
meaning
of
an
The
datatype
abstraction
used
in
RDF
deleted text:
graph.
There
is
compatible
with
the
formal
meaning
as
determined
by
the
RDF
semantics
abstraction
used
in
XML
Schema
Part
2:
Datatypes
[
<a href= "#ref-rdf-semantics">
RDF-SEMANTICS
XML-SCHEMA2
].
This
determines,
with
mathematical
precision,
the
conclusions
that
can
logically
be
drawn
from
an
RDF
graph.
There
is
also
the
social
meaning
A
datatype
consists
of
the
graph.
It
is
the
social
meaning
that
affects
what
it
means
to
people
a
lexical
space,
a
value
space
and
how
it
interacts
with
human
social
institutions
such
as
our
systems
of
law.
a
lexical-to-value
mapping.
deleted text:
<h3>
<a id="section-AssertedForm" name="section-AssertedForm">
4.1
Asserted
and
Non-asserted
Forms
</a>
</h3>
RDF/XML
expressions,
i.e.
encodings
of
RDF
graphs,
can
be
used
to
make
claims
or
assertions
about
the
'real'
world.
Such
expressions
are
said
to
be
The
<a id="dfn-asserted" name= "dfn-asserted">
asserted
lexical
space
</dfn>.
</p>
<p>
Not
every
RDF/XML
expression
is
asserted.
Some
may
convey
meaning
that
is
partly
determined
by
the
circumstances
in
which
they
are
used.
For
example,
in
English,
a
statement
"I
don't
believe
that
George
is
of
a
clown"
contains
the
words
"George
datatype
is
a
clown",
which,
considered
in
isolation,
has
the
form
set
of
an
assertion
that
George
exhibits
certain
comic
qualities.
However,
considering
the
whole
sentence,
no
such
assertion
is
considered
to
be
made.
Unicode
[
UNICODE
]
strings.
<h3>
The
<a id="section-Social" name="section-Social">
4.2
Social
Meaning
lexical-to-value
mapping
</h3>
<p>
When
an
RDF
graph
is
asserted
in
the
Web,
its
publisher
of
a
datatype
is
saying
something
about
their
view
a
set
of
the
world.
Such
an
assertion
should
be
understood
pairs
whose
first
element
belongs
to
deleted text:
carry
the
same
social
import
and
responsibilities
as
an
assertion
in
any
other
format.
A
combination
lexical
space
of
social
(e.g.
legal)
the
datatype,
and
deleted text:
technical
machinery
(protocols,
file
formats,
publication
frameworks)
provide
the
contexts
that
fix
second
element
belongs
to
the
intended
meanings
value
space
of
the
vocabulary
of
some
piece
of
RDF,
and
which
distinguish
assertions
from
other
uses
(e.g.
citations,
denials
or
illustrations).
datatype:
<p>
The
technical
machinery
includes
protocols
for
transferring
information
(e.g.
HTTP,
SMTP)
and
file
formats
for
encapsulating
and
labelling
information
(e.g.
MIME,
XML).
A
media
type,
<span class="code">
application/rdf+xml
</span>
[
<a href= "#ref-rdf-mime-type">
RDF-MIME-TYPE
</a>
]
indicates
the
use
-
Each
member
of
deleted text:
RDF/XML
as
distinct
from
some
other
XML
that
happens
to
look
like
RDF.
Issuing
an
HTTP
GET request
and
obtaining
data
with
a
"200
OK"
response
code
is
a
technical
indication
that
the
received
data
was
published
at
the
request
URI;
but
data
received
lexical
space
is
paired
with
a
"404
Not
found"
response
cannot
be
considered
to
be
similarly
published
information.
</p>
<p>
The
social
machinery
includes
the
form
of
publication:
publishing
some
unqualified
statements
on
one's
World
Wide
Web
home
page
would
generally
be
taken
as
an
assertion
(maps
to)
exactly
one
member
of
deleted text:
those
statements.
But
publishing
the
same
statements
with
a
qualification,
such
as
"here
are
some
common
myths",
or
as
part
value
space.
-
Each
member
of
a
rebuttal,
would
likely
not
the
value
space
may
be
construed
as
an
assertion
paired
with
any
number
(including
zero)
of
the
truth
members
of
deleted text:
those
statements.
Similar
considerations
apply
to
the
publication
of
assertions
expressed
in
RDF.
</p>
<p>
An
RDF
graph
may
contain
"defining
information"
lexical
space
(lexical
representations
for
that
value).
A
datatype
is
opaque
to
logical
reasoners.
This
information
may
be
used
identified
by
human
interpreters
of
RDF
information,
one
or
programmers
writing
software
to
perform
specialized
forms
of
deduction
in
the
Semantic
Web.
more
URI
references.
deleted text:
<h3>
<a name="section-authority" id= "section-authority">
4.3
Authoritative
Definition
of
Terms
</a>
</h3>
deleted text:
The
social
conventions
surrounding
use
of
RDF
assume
that
may
be
used
with
any
RDF
URI
reference
gains
its
meaning
from
some
defining
individual,
organization
or
context.
This
applies
most
notably
datatype
definition
that
conforms
to
RDF
predicate
URI
references.
this
abstraction,
even
if
not
defined
in
terms
of
XML
Schema.
These
social
conventions
Certain
XML
Schema
built-in
datatypes
are
rooted
in
the
URI
specification
[
<a href= "#ref-uris">
URI
</a>
]
and
registration
procedures
[
<a href= "#ref-uri-reg">
URI-REG
</a>
].
A
URI
scheme
registration
refers
to
a
specification
of
the
detailed
syntax
and
interpretation
not
suitable
for
that
scheme,
from
which
use
within
RDF.
For
example,
the
defining
authority
for
QName
datatype
requires
a
given
URI
may
namespace
declaration
to
be
deduced.
In
the
case
of
http:
URIs,
in
scope
during
the
defining
specification
mapping,
and
is
the
HTTP
protocol
specification
not
recommended
for
use
in
RDF.
[
<a href= "#ref-http">
HTTP
RDF-SEMANTICS
],
which
specifies
how
to
use
the
HTTP
protocol
to
obtain
]
contains
a
resource
representation
from
the
host
named
in
the
URI;
thus,
the
owner
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
indicated
DNS
domain
controls
(observable
aspects
of)
the
URI's
meaning.
specific
XML
Schema
built-in
datatypes.
Thus,
Note:
When
the
choice
of
terms
used
in
published
RDF
datatype
is
deleted text:
significant
in
determining
its
meaning,
through
reference
to
definitions
asserted
by
the
defining
authorities
for
those
terms.
</p>
<p>
For
important
documents,
the
use
of
third-party
vocabulary
should
be
restricted
to
terms
defined
by
trustworthy
parties
(e.g.
recognized
standards
bodies
or
reputable
organizations),
or
that
otherwise
have
socially
well-established
meanings.
</p>
<p>
However,
even
when
a
URI
reference
can
be
dereferenced
as
an
RDF/XML
document,
it's
use
within
an
asserted
RDF
graph
does
not
implicitly
assert
the
contents
of
the
referenced
document.
using
XML
Schema:
<h3>
<a id="section-Interaction" name="section-Interaction">
4.4
Interaction
Between
Social
and
Formal
Meaning
</a>
</h3>
<p>
Human
publishers
of
RDF
content
commit
themselves
-
All
values
correspond
to
some
lexical
form,
either
using
the
mechanically-inferred
social
obligations.
</p>
<p>
The
meaning
of
an
RDF
document
includes
the
social
meaning,
the
formal
meaning,
and
the
social
meaning
lexical-to-value
mapping
of
the
formal
entailments.
The
assertion
datatype
or
if
it
is
a
union
datatype
with
a
lexical
mapping
associated
with
one
of
deleted text:
an
RDF
graph
<var>
G
</var>,
when
<var>
G
</var>
logically
entails
<var>
G'
</var>,
includes
the
implicit
assertion
of
<var>
G'
</var>.
The
implied
assertion
member
datatypes.
-
XML
Schema
facets
remain
part
of
deleted text:
<var>
G'
</var>
should
be
interpreted
using
the
same
social
conventions
that
datatype
and
are
deleted text:
reasonably
used
to
interpret
the
assertion
of
<var>
G
</var>.
</p>
<!-- <p>
The logical entailment intended with content of media type <span class="code">
application/rdf+xml
</span> [
<a href= "#ref-rdf-mime-type">
RDF-MIME-TYPE
</a>
] is that defined in the RDF Semantics [
<a href= "#ref-rdf-semantics">
RDF-SEMANTICS
</a>
], as <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#XSD-entailment">
XSD entailment
</a>, i.e. respecting the RDF vocabulary, the RDFS vocabulary and the XML Schema datatypes.
</p> <p>
Information within such content, or the use of a different media type, may indicate the use of a <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dfn-semantic-extension">
semantic extension
</a> to RDF. When such an extension is indicated, this usually indicates that the stronger formal entailment associated with that extension is intended as part of the meaning of the RDF.
</p> <p>
The social conventions surrounding use of RDF include of RDF include the idea that each URI is associated with some defining authority or context, from which it derives its meaning. See <link>
section 2.4.4
</link> for further discussion of this idea. </p> ]] the idea that each URI 'belongs to' somebody who has authority and responsibility for defining its meaning. The social conventions are rooted in the URI specification [
<a href="#ref-uris">
RFC2396
</a>
] and registration procedures [
<a href="#ref-uri-reg">
RFC2717
</a>
]. A URI scheme registration refers to a specification of the detailed syntax and interpretation for that scheme, from which the defining authority for a given URI may be deduced. In the case of <var>
http:
</var> URIs, the defining specification is the HTTP protocol specification [RFC2616], which obtains a resource representation from the host named in the URI; thus, the owner of the host's DNS domain controls (observable aspects of) the URI's meaning.
</p> <p>
Publication of RDF, when considered as a social act, constitutes a publication of some content that is defined by whatever normal <span class= "expression">
social
</span> conditions are used by the publishers of any terms in the RDF to define the meanings of those terms, even if those meanings and definitions are not accessible to the formal semantics of RDF; and, moreover, those meanings are preserved under any formally sanctioned inference processes. </p> -->
<h3>
<a id="section-InteractionExample" name= "section-InteractionExample">
4.5
Example
(Informative)
</a>
</h3>
<p>
Imagine
two
websites
publishing
the
following
RDF:
</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" summary= "This table shows RDF triples found in two different websites: concerning the terms A:Clown and B:Comic.">
<tr>
<td colspan="3" valign="top">
(A)
<span class= "expression">
http://insult.example.com/lexicon#
<br />
</span>
asserts
by
the
following,
and
this
is
all
XML
Schema
mechanisms
that
one
can
find
on
control
the
website
about
that
term:
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="code" valign="top">
A:Clown
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdf:type
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdfs:Class
.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="code" valign="top">
A:Clown
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdfs:comment
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
"A
class
of
foolish
people,
whose
pronouncements
are
probably
ill-considered
lexical
space
and
deleted text:
not
to
be
taken
seriously"
.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" valign="top">
<br />
(B)
<span class= "expression">
http://AngloSaxon.example.org/lexicon#
</span>
<br />
asserts:
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="code" valign="top">
B:Comic
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdf:subClassOf
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
<http://insult.example.com/lexicon#Clown>
.
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
Imagine
also
a
third,
using
the
vocabulary
previously
defined
by
the
first
two.
</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" summary= "This table shows an RDF triple found in a third website.">
<tr>
<td colspan="3" valign="top">
<p>
<br />
(C)
<span class= "expression">
http://skunk.example.org/
</span>
<br />
asserts
the
following,
assuming
that
<span class= "expression">
C:JohnSmith
</span>
is
understood
to
refer
to
some
particular
person:
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="code" valign="top">
C:JohnSmith
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdf:type
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
<http://AngloSaxon.example.org/lexicon#Comic>
.
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
Now,
it
follows
by
the
formal
value
space;
however,
RDF
model
theory
that
these
three
together
entail:
</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" summary= "This table shows a formal entailment of the two previous tables.">
<tr>
<td class="code" valign="top">
C:JohnSmith
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdf:type
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
A:Clown
.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="code" valign="top">
<A:Clown>
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
rdfs:comment
</td>
<td class="code" valign="top">
"A
class
of
foolish
people,
whose
pronouncements
are
probably
ill-considered
and
does
not
define
a
standard
mechanism
to
be
taken
seriously"
.
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
Given
this
formal
entailment,
the
social
context
of
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/#ch_comment">
<span class= "expression">
rdfs:comment
</span>
</a>
is
understood
by
referring
to
the
access
these
facets.
-
In
[
<a href="#ref-rdf-vocabulary">
RDF-VOCABULARY
XML-SCHEMA1
]
which
says
it
provides:
"a
human-readable
description
of
a
resource".
Thus,
the
person
identified
as
<span class= "expression">
C:JohnSmith
</span>
might
reasonably
consider
himself
],
white
space
normalization
occurs
during
validation
according
to
deleted text:
be
insulted.
</p>
<p>
Moreover,
since
the
publishers
value
of
the
third
Web
site
<span class= "expression">
http://skunk.example.org/
</span>
link
<span class= "expression">
C:JohnSmith
</span>
to
whiteSpace
facet
.
The
lexical-to-value
mapping
used
in
RDF
datatyping
occurs
after
this,
so
that
the
vocabulary
previously
defined
to
be
insulting,
it
is
they
who
have
insulted
<span class= "expression">
C:JohnSmith
</span>.
</p>
<!-- <p>
which Why? Not because of the RDF model theory, which merely says he is in some class about which nothing can be <em>
formally
</em> inferred. However, the <span class="expression">
rdfs:comment
</span> associated with that class name by the owner of that name provides the insulting content, <em>
in the social context of Web publication
</em>, even though it cannot be formally inferred via the RDF inference rules.
</p> <p>
But who has insulted the identified person? A merely defined the term; B does not mention him in particular, so even A and B together do not constitute a personal insult. And C might argue that although he refers to the person, he only asserts that he is a comic, which is not in itself grounds for a libel suit. However, one could reasonably claim that C is to blame, since C uses not a generic term 'Comic', but a particular URI reference which is defined by its owner (B) in a way which is clearly insulting, since B in turn explicitly refers to, and uses, the term defined by A. Thus, C's use of a B-defined term suggests a clear intent by C to convey a meaning defined by B, by virtue of a definition by A, which is insulting.
</p> <p>
By using the specific name <span class= "expression">
http://AngloSaxon.example.org/lexicon#Comic
</span> instead of some term defined in, say, a glossary of job descriptions, B has explicitly removed his use of the term 'Clown' from any formal connection with people who are entertainers. In order to succeed in his probable intent of making a generic slander against these people, B should have used a term that was defined by someone else, such as:
</p> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="4" summary= "This table shows the triple: http://www.entertainers.com/glossary#Comic rdfs:subClassOf http://insult.com/lexicon#Clown."> <tr> <td class="code" colspan="3" valign="top"> <http://entertainers.example.com/glossary#Comic>
<br /> rdfs:subClassOf <http://insult.example.com/lexicon#Clown> .
</td> </tr> </table> <p>
and then if C had also used this first URI reference, then in spite of a similar formal inference chain generating the insulting conclusion about <span class="expression">
C:JohnSmith
</span>, there would be nobody to sue, since now C would indeed have simply made a harmless observation about his occupation, and B's assertion, while indeed arguably offensive, makes no reference to him in particular.
</p> -->
<h2>
whiteSpace
facet
has
no
effect
in
RDF
datatyping.
RDF
provides
for
XML
content
as
a
possible
literal
value.
This
typically
originates
from
the
use
of
rdf:parseType="Literal"
in
the
RDF/XML
Syntax
[
RDF-SYNTAX
].
Such
content
is
indicated
in
an
RDF
graph
using
a
typed
literal
whose
datatype
is
a
special
built-in
deleted text:
datatype,
<span class="code">
rdf:XMLLiteral
</span>.
</p>
<p>
As
part
of
the
definition
of
this
datatype,
an
ancillary
definition
is
used.
</p>
<p>
The
<em>
XML
document
corresponding
to
</em>
a
pair
<var>
(
str,
lang
)
</var>
is
formed
as
follows:
</p>
<div class="block">
<p>
Concatenate
the
five
strings:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
<span class="code">
"<rdf-wrapper
xml:lang='"
</span>
</li>
<li>
<var>
lang
</var>
</li>
<li>
<span class="code">
"'>"
</span>
</li>
<li>
<var>
str
</var>
</li>
<li>
<span class="code">
"</rdf-wrapper>"
</span>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
Encode
the
resulting
Unicode
string
in
UTF-8
to
form
the
corresponding
XML
document.
</p>
<p>
No
escaping
is
applied.
The
choice
of
<span class="code">
rdf-wrapper
</span>
is
fixed
but
arbitrary.
</p>
</div>
<p>
The
<em>
XML
document
corresponding
to
</em>
a
string
<var>
str
</var>
is
formed
as
the
XML
document
corresponding
to
the
pair
<var>
(str,
"")
</var>.
</p>
<p>
Using
this,
the
datatype
deleted text:
<a id="dfn-rdfs-XMLLiteral" name= "dfn-rdfs-XMLLiteral" >
</a>
rdf:XMLLiteral
</dfn>
is
,
defined
as
follows.
-
The
datatype
A
URI
reference
for
identifying
this
datatype
-
is
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral
.
-
The
value
lexical
space
-
is
the
set
of
all
XML
documents
that:
strings:
-
Have
root
element
tag:
<span class="code">
<rdf-wrapper>
</span>
</li>
<li>
Have
no
attributes
on
the
root
element
other
than
<span class="code">
xml:lang
</span>
</li>
<li>
which
are
deleted text:
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#Terminology">
Canonical
XML
</a>
[
<a href="#ref-XML-C14N">
XML-C14N
</a>
]
(with
comments).
</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt>
The
lexical
space
</dt>
<dd>
contains
all
pairs
<var>
(
string,
lang
)
</var>
where
<var>
lang
</var>
is
any
language
identifier
[
<a href= "#ref-rfc-3066">
RFC-3066
</a>
]
in
lowercase,
and
<span class="code">
string
</span>
is
well-balanced,
self-contained
XML
deleted text:
element
content
[
XML
],
];
-
for
which
the
XML
document
corresponding
to
the
pair
is
a
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-well-formed">
well-formed
XML
document
</a>
<a href="#ref-xml">
[XML]
encoding
as
UTF-8
[
RFC
2279
that
also
conforms
to
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/">
]
yields
exclusive
Canonical
XML
deleted text:
Namespaces
<a href="#ref-namespaces">
[XML-NS]
</a>.
</dd>
<dd>
also
contains
all
strings
<span class="code">
string
</span>
which
are
well-balanced,
self-contained
XML
element
content
[
<a href= "#ref-xml">
XML
(with
comments,
with
empty
InclusiveNamespaces
PrefixList
],
and
)
[XML-XC14N]
;
-
for
which
the
corresponding
embedding
between
an
arbitrary
XML
document
is
start
tag
and
an
end
tag
yields
a
deleted text:
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-well-formed">
well-formed
XML
document
</a>
<a href="#ref-xml">
[XML]
</a>
that
also
conforms
conforming
to
XML
Namespaces
[XML-NS]
</a>.
-
The
mapping
value
space
-
is
deleted text:
defined
as
the
function
that
maps
a
pair
or
string
to
set
of
entities,
called
XML
values,
which
is:
-
disjoint
from
the
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#Terminology">
canonical
form
lexical
space;
-
disjoint
from
the
value
space
of
any
XML
schema
datatype
[
XML-SCHEMA2
];
-
disjoint
from
the
set
of
Unicode
character
strings
[
<a href="#ref-XML-C14N">
XML-C14N
UNICODE
]
(with
comments)
of
strings;
-
and
in
1:1
correspondence
with
the
corresponding
XML
document.
lexical
space.
</dl>
<p class="note">
-
<strong>
Reminder:
</strong>
All
other
datatypes
have
The
lexical-to-value
mapping
-
is
a
one-one
mapping
from
the
lexical
space
being
a
set
of
strings,
onto
the
value
space,
i.e.
it
is
both
injective
and
a
mapping
which
maps
strings
to
values.
</p>
surjective.
Note:
Not
all
values
of
this
datatype
are
compliant
with
XML
1.1
[
XML
1.1
].
If
compliance
with
XML
1.1
is
desired,
then
only
those
values
that
are
fully
normalized
according
to
XML
1.1
should
be
used.
Note:
XML
values
can
be
thought
of
as
the
[
XML-INFOSET
]
or
the
[
XPATH
]
nodeset
corresponding
to
the
lexical
form,
with
an
appropriate
equality
function.
Note:
RDF
applications
may
use
additional
equivalence
relations,
such
as
that
which
relates
an
xsd:string
with
an
rdf:XMLLiteral
corresponding
to
a
single
text
node
of
the
same
string.
This
section
defines
the
RDF
abstract
syntax.
The
RDF
abstract
syntax
is
a
set
of
triples,
called
the
RDF
graph.
This
section
also
defines
equality
equivalence
between
RDF
graphs.
A
definition
of
equality
equivalence
is
needed
to
support
the
RDF
Test
Cases
[
RDF-TESTS
]
specification.
Implementation
Note:
This
abstract
syntax
is
the
syntax
over
which
the
formal
semantics
are
defined.
Implementations
are
free
to
represent
RDF
graphs
in
any
other
equivalent
form.
As
an
example:
in
an
RDF
graph,
literals
with
datatype
rdf:XMLLiteral
can
be
represented
in
a
non-canonical
format,
and
canonicalization
performed
during
the
comparison
between
two
such
literals.
In
this
example
the
comparisons
may
be
being
performed
either
between
syntactic
structures
or
between
their
denotations
in
the
domain
of
discourse.
Implementations
that
do
not
require
any
such
comparisons
can
hence
be
optimized.
An
RDF
triple
contains
three
components:
An
RDF
triple
is
conventionally
written
in
the
order
subject,
predicate,
object.
The
predicate
is
also
known
as
the
property
of
the
triple.
An
RDF
graph
is
a
set
of
RDF
triples.
The
set
of
nodes
of
an
RDF
graph
is
the
set
of
subjects
and
objects
of
triples
in
the
graph.
Two
RDF
graphs
G
and
G'
are
equal
equivalent
if
there
is
a
bijection
M
between
the
nodes
of
the
two
graphs,
such
that:
-
M(lit)=lit
for
all
RDF
literals
lit
which
are
nodes
of
either
graph.
-
M(uri)=uri
for
all
RDF
URI
references
uri
which
are
nodes
of
either
graph.
-
The
triple
(
s,
p,
o
)
is
in
G
if
and
only
if
the
triple
(
M(s),
p,
M(o)
)
is
in
G'
With
this
definition,
there
are
the
same
number
of
blank
nodes
in
the
two
graphs,
and
M
shows
how
each
blank
node
in
G
can
be
replaced
with
a
new
blank
node
to
give
G'
.
A
URI
reference
within
an
RDF
graph
(an
RDF
URI
reference)
is
a
Unicode
string
[
UNICODE
]
that:
-
is
in
Normal
Form
C
[
<a href="#ref-nfc">
NFC
</a>
]
and
does
not
contain
any
control
characters
(
#x00
-
#x1F,
#x7F-#x9F)
-
and
would
produce
a
valid
URI
character
sequence
(per
RFC2396
[
URI
],
sections
2.1)
representing
an
absolute
URI
with
optional
fragment
identifier
when
subjected
to
the
encoding
described
below.
The
encoding
consists
of:
-
encoding
the
Unicode
string
as
UTF-8
[
RFC-2279
],
giving
a
sequence
of
octet
values.
-
%-escaping
octets
that
do
not
correspond
to
permitted
US-ASCII
characters.
The
disallowed
octets
that
must
be
%-escaped
include
all
those
that
do
not
correspond
to
US-ASCII
characters,
and
the
excluded
characters
listed
in
Section
2.4
of
[
URI
],
except
for
the
number
sign
(#),
percent
sign
(%),
and
the
square
bracket
characters
re-allowed
in
[
RFC-2732
].
Disallowed
octets
must
be
escaped
with
the
URI
escaping
mechanism
(that
is,
converted
to
%HH,
where
HH
is
the
2-digit
hexadecimal
numeral
corresponding
to
the
octet
value).
Two
RDF
URI
references
are
equal
if
and
only
if
they
compare
as
equal,
character
by
character,
as
Unicode
strings.
deleted text:
Editors'
Note:
</strong>
This
section
is
in
the
scope
of
the
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/">
TAG
</a>
issue
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#IRIEverywhere-27">
IRIEverywhere-27
</a>.
The
editors
are
expecting
a
resolution
of
this
issue
during
the
last
call
period.
This
may
result
in
updates
to
this
section.
</p>
<p>
<strong>
Note:
RDF
URI
references
are
compatible
with
the
anyURI
datatype
as
defined
by
XML
schema
datatypes
[
XML-SCHEMA2
],
constrained
to
be
an
absolute
rather
than
a
relative
URI
reference,
and
constrained
to
be
in
Unicode
Normal
Form
C
[
<a href="#ref-nfc">
NFC
</a>
]
(for
compatibility
with
[
<a href="#ref-charmod">
CHARMOD
</a>
]).
reference.
Note:
RDF
URI
references
are
compatible
with
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#IRIs">
International
Resource
Identifiers
as
defined
by
[
XML
Namespaces
1.1
].
Note:
this
section
anticipates
an
RFC
on
Internationalized
Resource
Identifiers.
Implementations
may
issue
warnings
concerning
the
use
of
RDF
URI
References
that
do
not
conform
with
[
IRI
draft
]
or
its
successors.
Note:
The
restriction
to
absolute
URI
references
is
found
in
this
abstract
syntax.
When
there
is
a
well-defined
base
URI,
concrete
syntaxes,
such
as
RDF/XML,
may
permit
relative
URIs
as
a
shorthand
for
such
absolute
URI
references.
A
literal
in
an
RDF
graph
contains
three
components
called:
one
or
two
named
components.
<ul>
<li>
The
All
literals
have
a
lexical
form
being
a
Unicode
[
UNICODE
]
string
string,
which
SHOULD
be
in
Normal
Form
C
[
NFC
].
</li>
<li>
The
Plain
literals
have
a
lexical
form
and
optionally
a
language
identifier
tag
as
defined
by
[
RFC-3066
],
normalized
to
lowercase.
</li>
<li>
The
<a id="dfn-datatype-URI" name= "dfn-datatype-URI">
datatype
URI
Typed
literals
being
an
<a href= "#dfn-URI-reference">
RDF
URI
reference
</a>.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
The
have
a
lexical
form
is
present
in
all
RDF
literals;
the
language
identifier
and
the
datatype
URI
may
be
absent
from
an
RDF
literal.
</p>
<p>
A
a
<a id="dfn-plain-literal" name="dfn-plain-literal">
plain
literal
</a>
</dfn>
is
one
in
which
the
datatype
URI
deleted text:
is
absent.
</p>
<p>
A
<dfn>
<a id="dfn-typed-literal" name="dfn-typed-literal">
typed
literal
is
one
in
which
the
datatype
being
an
RDF
URI
is
present.
reference
.
Note:
Literals
in
which
the
lexical
form
begins
with
a
composing
character
(as
defined
by
[
CHARMOD
])
are
allowed
however
they
may
cause
interoperability
problems,
particularly
with
XML
version
1.1
[
XML
1.1
].
Note:
When
using
the
language
identifier,
tag,
care
must
be
taken
not
to
confuse
language
with
locale.
The
language
identifier
only
tag
relates
only
to
human
language
text.
Presentational
issues,
how
to
best
represent
typed
data
to
the
end-user,
issues
should
be
addressed
in
end-user
applications.
Note:
The
case
normalization
of
language
tags
is
part
of
the
description
of
the
abstract
syntax,
and
consequently
the
abstract
behaviour
of
RDF
applications.
It
does
not
constrain
an
RDF
implementation
to
actually
normalize
the
case.
Crucially,
the
result
of
comparing
two
language
tags
should
not
be
sensitive
to
the
case
of
the
original
input.
Two
literals
are
equal
if
and
only
if
all
of
the
following
hold:
-
The
strings
of
the
two
lexical
forms
compare
equal,
character
by
character.
-
Either
both
or
neither
have
language
identifiers.
tags.
-
The
language
identifiers
of
the
two
lexical
forms
tags,
if
any,
compare
equal.
-
Either
both
or
neither
have
datatype
URIs.
-
The
two
datatype
URIs,
if
any,
compare
equal,
character
by
character.
Note:
RDF
Literals
are
distinct
and
distinguishable
from
RDF
URI
references;
e.g.
http://example.org
as
an
RDF
Literal
(untyped,
without
a
language
identifier)
tag)
is
not
equal
to
http://example.org
as
an
RDF
URI
reference.
The
datatype
URI
refers
to
a
datatype
.
For
XML
Schema
built-in
datatypes,
URIs
such
as
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int
are
used.
The
URI
of
the
datatype
rdf:XMLLiteral
may
be
used.
There
may
be
other,
implementation
dependent,
mechanisms
by
which
URIs
refer
to
datatypes.
The
value
associated
with
a
typed
literal
is
found
by
applying
the
datatype
lexical-to-value
mapping
associated
with
the
datatype
URI
to
the
lexical
form.
deleted text:
Exceptionally,
if
the
datatype
is
<a href= "#section-XMLLiteral" class="code">
rdf:XMLLiteral
</a>
and
the
literal
has
a
language
identifier,
then
the
datatype
mapping
is
applied
to
the
pair
form
by
the
lexical
form
and
the
language
identifier.
If
the
lexical
form
is
not
in
the
lexical
space
of
the
datatype
associated
with
the
datatype
URI,
then
no
literal
value
can
be
associated
with
the
typed
literal.
Such
a
case,
while
in
error,
is
not
syntacticly
syntactically
ill-formed.
<p>
A
typed
literal
for
which
the
datatype
does
not
map
the
lexical
form
to
a
value
is
not
syntacticly
ill-formed.
</p>
Note:
In
application
contexts,
comparing
the
values
of
typed
literals
(see
section
6.5.2
)
is
usually
more
helpful
than
comparing
their
syntactic
forms
(see
section
6.5.1
).
Similarly,
for
comparing
RDF
Graphs,
semantic
notions
of
entailment
(see
[
RDF-SEMANTICS
])
are
usually
more
helpful
than
syntactic
equality
(see
section
6.3
).
The
blank
nodes
in
an
RDF
graph
are
drawn
from
an
infinite
set.
This
set
of
blank
nodes,
the
set
of
all
RDF
URI
references
and
the
set
of
all
literals
are
pairwise
disjoint.
Otherwise,
this
set
of
blank
nodes
is
arbitrary.
RDF
makes
no
reference
to
any
internal
structure
of
blank
nodes.
Given
two
blank
nodes,
it
is
possible
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
are
the
same.
RDF
uses
an
RDF
URI
Reference
</a>
,
,
which
may
include
a
fragment
identifier,
as
a
context
free
identifier
for
a
resource.
RFC
2396
[
URI
]
states
that
the
meaning
of
a
fragment
identifier
depends
on
the
MIME
content-type
of
a
document,
i.e.
is
context
dependent.
These
apparently
conflicting
views
are
reconciled
by
considering
that,
that
a
URI
reference
in
an
RDF
graph,
any
graph
is
treated
with
respect
to
the
MIME
type
application/rdf+xml
[
RDF-MIME-TYPE
].
Given
an
RDF
URI
reference
consisting
of
an
absolute
URI
and
a
fragment
identifier
identifier,
the
fragment
identifer
identifies
the
same
thing
as
the
fragment
identifier
that
it
does
in
an
application/rdf+xml
[
<a href= "#ref-rdf-mime-type">
RDF-MIME-TYPE
</a>
]
representation
of
the
resource
identified
by
the
absolute
URI
component.
Thus:
-
we
assume
that
the
URI
part
(i.e.
excluding
fragment
identifier)
indicates
identifies
a
Web
resource
with
resource,
which
is
presumed
to
have
an
RDF
representation.
So
when
eg:someurl#frag
is
used
in
an
RDF
document,
eg:someurl
is
presumed
taken
to
designate
an
some
RDF
document.
document
(even
when
no
such
document
can
be
retrieved).
-
eg:someurl#frag
means
the
thing
that
is
indicated,
according
to
the
rules
of
the
<span class= "code">
application/rdf+xml
MIME
content-type
as
a
"fragment"
or
"view"
of
the
RDF
document
at
<span class= "code">
eg:someurl
.
If
the
document
does
not
exist,
or
cannot
be
retrieved,
or
is
available
only
in
formats
other
than
application/rdf+xml
,
then
exactly
what
that
view
may
be
is
somewhat
undetermined,
but
that
does
not
prevent
use
of
RDF
to
say
things
about
it.
-
the
RDF
interpretation
treatment
of
a
fragment
identifier
allows
it
to
indicate
a
thing
that
is
entirely
external
to
the
document,
or
even
to
the
"shared
information
space"
known
as
the
Web.
That
is,
it
can
be
an
abstract
a
more
general
idea,
like
Graham
Klyne's
some
particular
car
or
a
mythical
Unicorn.
-
thus,
in
this
way,
an
application/rdf+xml
document
acts
as
an
intermediary
between
some
Web
retrievable
documents
(itself,
at
least,
also
any
other
Web
retrievable
URIs
that
it
may
use,
possibly
including
schema
URIs
and
references
to
other
RDF
documents),
and
some
set
of
possibly
abstract
or
non-Web
entities
that
the
RDF
may
describe.
This
provides
a
handling
of
URI
references
and
their
denotation
that
is
consistent
with
the
RDF
model
theory
and
usage,
and
also
with
conventional
Web
behavior.
Note
that
nothing
here
requires
that
an
RDF
application
be
able
to
retrieve
any
representation
of
resources
identified
by
the
URIs
in
an
RDF
graph.
This
document
contains
a
significant
contribution
from
Pat
Hayes,
Sergey
Melnik
and
Patrick
Stickler,
under
whose
leadership
was
developed
the
framework
described
in
the
RDF
family
of
specifications
for
representing
datatyped
values,
such
as
integers
and
dates.
The
editors
acknowledge
valuable
contributions
from
the
following:
Frank
Manola,
Pat
Hayes,
Dan
Brickley,
Jos
de
Roo,
Dave
Beckett,
Patrick
Stickler,
Peter
F.
Patel-Schneider,
Jerome
Euzenat,
Massimo
Marchiori,
Tim
Berners-Lee,
Dave
Reynolds
and
Dan
Connolly.
Jeremy
Carroll
thanks
Oreste
Signore
,
his
host
at
the
W3C
Office
in
Italy
and
Istituto
di
Scienza
e
Tecnologie
dell'Informazione
"Alessandro
Faedo"
,
part
of
the
Consiglio
Nazionale
delle
Ricerche
,
where
Jeremy
is
a
visiting
researcher.
This
document
is
a
product
of
extended
deliberations
by
the
RDFcore
Working
Group,
whose
members
have
included:
Art
Barstow
(W3C),
Dave
Beckett
(ILRT),
Dan
Brickley
(ILRT),
Dan
Connolly
(W3C),
Jeremy
Carroll
(Hewlett
Packard),
Ron
Daniel
(Interwoven
Inc),
Bill
dehOra
(InterX),
Jos
De
Roo
(AGFA),
Jan
Grant
(ILRT),
Graham
Klyne
(Nine
by
Nine),
Frank
Manola
(MITRE
Corporation),
Brian
McBride
(Hewlett
Packard),
Eric
Miller
(W3C),
Stephen
Petschulat
(IBM),
Patrick
Stickler
(Nokia),
Aaron
Swartz
(HWG),
Mike
Dean
(BBN
Technologies
/
Verizon),
R.
V.
Guha
(Alpiri
Inc),
Pat
Hayes
(IHMC),
Sergey
Melnik
(Stanford
University)
and
Martyn
Horner
(Profium
Ltd).
deleted text:
This
specification
also
draws
upon
an
earlier
RDF
Model
and
Syntax
document
edited
by
Ora
Lassilla
and
Ralph
Swick,
and
RDF
Schema
edited
by
Dan
Brickley
and
R.
V.
Guha.
RDF
and
RDF
Schema
Working
Group
members
who
contributed
to
this
earlier
work
are:
Nick
Arnett
(Verity),
Tim
Berners-Lee
(W3C),
Tim
Bray
(Textuality),
Dan
Brickley
(ILRT
/
University
of
Bristol),
Walter
Chang
(Adobe),
Sailesh
Chutani
(Oracle),
Dan
Connolly
(W3C),
Ron
Daniel
(DATAFUSION),
Charles
Frankston
(Microsoft),
Patrick
Gannon
(CommerceNet),
R.
V.
Guha
(Epinions,
previously
of
Netscape
Communications),
Tom
Hill
(Apple
Computer),
Arthur
van
Hoff
(Marimba),
Renato
Iannella
(DSTC),
Sandeep
Jain
(Oracle),
Kevin
Jones,
(InterMind),
Emiko
Kezuka
(Digital
Vision
Laboratories),
Joe
Lapp
(webMethods
Inc.),
Ora
Lassila
(Nokia
Research
Center),
Andrew
Layman
(Microsoft),
Ralph
LeVan
(OCLC),
John
McCarthy
(Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory),
Chris
McConnell
(Microsoft),
Murray
Maloney
(Grif),
Michael
Mealling
(Network
Solutions),
Norbert
Mikula
(DataChannel),
Eric
Miller
(OCLC),
Jim
Miller
(W3C,
emeritus),
Frank
Olken
(Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory),
Jean
Paoli
(Microsoft),
Sri
Raghavan
(Digital/Compaq),
Lisa
Rein
(webMethods
Inc.),
Paul
Resnick
(University
of
Michigan),
Bill
Roberts
(KnowledgeCite),
i
Tsuyoshi
Sakata
(Digital
Vision
Laboratories),
Bob
Schloss
(IBM),
Leon
Shklar
(Pencom
Web
Works),
David
Singer
(IBM),
Wei
(William)
Song
(SISU),
Neel
Sundaresan
(IBM),
Ralph
Swick
(W3C),
Naohiko
Uramoto
(IBM),
Charles
Wicksteed
(Reuters
Ltd.),
Misha
Wolf
(Reuters
Ltd.)
and
Lauren
Wood
(SoftQuad).
9.1
Normative
References
-
[RDF-SYNTAX]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/">
RDF/XML
Syntax
Specification
(Revised)
,
Dave
Beckett,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
8
November
2002
10
October
2003
(work
in
progress).
This
version
of
the
RDF/XML
Syntax
Specification
(Revised)
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20031010/.
The
latest
version
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
.
-
[RDF-SEMANTICS]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/">
RDF
Semantics
,
P.
Hayes,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
12
November
2002
10
October
2003
(work
in
progress).
This
version
of
the
RDF
Semantics
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20021112/.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20031010/.
The
latest
version
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
.
-
deleted text:
<a id="ref-rdf-vocabulary" name= "ref-rdf-vocabulary">
</a>
[RDF-VOCABULARY]
</dt>
<dd>
<i>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/">
RDF
Vocabulary
Description
Language
1.0:
RDF
Schema
</a>
</i>,
Dan
Brickley,
R.V.
Guha,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
April
2002
(work
in
progress).
This
version
of
the
RDF
Vocabulary
Description
Language
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/.
The
latest
version
is
at
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/">
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
</a>.
</dd>
<dt>
[RDF-MIME-TYPE]
-
<a href= "http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-01.txt">
Application/rdf+xml
Media
Type
Registration
,
A.
Swartz,
IETF
Internet
Draft,
March
2002
September
11
2003
(work
in
progress).
Version
available
at
<a href= "http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-01.txt">
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-03.txt
.
-
[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
.
The
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/.
-
[RFC-2279]
-
RFC
2279
-
UTF-8,
a
transformation
format
of
ISO
10646
,
F.
Yergeau,
IETF,
January
1998.
This
document
is
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2279.txt.
-
[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.
-
deleted text:
<a id="ref-http" name="ref-http">
</a>
[HTTP]
</dt>
<dd>
<cite>
<a href="http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2616.txt">
RFC
2616
-
Hypertext
Transfer
Protocol
--
HTTP/1.1
</a>
</cite>,
R.
Fielding,
UC
Irvine,
J.
Gettys,
J.
Mogul,
H.
Frystyk,
L.
Masinter,
P.
Leach,
T.
Berners-Lee,
IETF,
August
1998.
This
document
is
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2616.txt.
</dd>
<dt>
<a id="ref-uri-reg" name="ref-uri-reg">
</a>
[URI-REG]
</dt>
<dd>
<cite>
<a href="http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2717.txt">
RFC
2717
-
Registration
Procedures
for
URL
Scheme
Names
</a>
</cite>,
R.
Petke
and
I.
King,
IETF,
November
1999.
This
document
is
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2717.txt.
</dd>
<dt>
[RFC-2732]
-
RFC
2732
-
Format
for
Literal
IPv6
Addresses
in
URL's
,
R.
Hinden,
B.
Carpenter
and
L.
Masinter,
IETF,
December
1999.
This
document
is
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2732.txt.
-
[UNICODE]
-
The
Unicode
Standard,
Version
3
,
The
Unicode
Consortium,
Addison-Wesley,
2000.
ISBN
0-201-61633-5,
as
updated
from
time
to
time
by
the
publication
of
new
versions.
(See
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/
for
the
latest
version
and
additional
information
on
versions
of
the
standard
and
of
the
Unicode
Character
Database).
-
[NFC]
-
Unicode
Normalization
Forms,
Unicode
Standard
Annex
#15,
Mark
Davis,
Martin
Dürst.
(See
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15/
for
the
latest
version).
-
[RFC-3066]
-
RFC
3066
-
Tags
for
the
Identification
of
Languages
,
H.
Alvestrand,
IETF,
January
2001.
This
document
is
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3066.txt.
-
<a id="ref-XML-C14N" name="ref-XML-C14N">
[XML-XC14N]
deleted text:
[XML-C14N]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315">
Canonical
XML.
Exclusive
XML
Canonicalization
Version
1.0
,
J.
Boyer.
Boyer,
D.E.
Eastlake
3rd,
J.
Reagle,
Authors/Editors.
W3C
Recommendation,
March
2001.
</dd>
<dd>
Available
at
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315">
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315
Recommendation.
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
18
July
2002.
This
version
of
Exclusive
XML
Canonicalization
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
.
The
latest
version
of
Canonical
XML
</dd>
<dd>
Available
is
at
<a href= "http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3076.txt">
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3076.txt
</a>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n.
deleted text:
<!-- <dt>
<a id="ref-keywords" name="ref-keywords">
</a>
[KEYWORDS]
</dt> <dd>
<cite>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt">
RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
</a>
</cite>, S. Bradner, IETF. March 1997. This document is http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt. <span class="todo">
[[[Is this used?]]]
</span>
</dd> <dt>
<a id="ref-rfc3023" name="ref-rfc3023">
</a>
[RFC-3023]
</dt> <dd>
<cite>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt">
RFC 3032 - XML Media Types
</a>
</cite>, M. Murata, S. St.Laurent, D.Kohn, IETF, January 2001. This document is http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt.
</dd> -->
-
[XML-SCHEMA2]
-
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/">
XML
Schema
Part
2:
Datatypes
deleted text:
-
W3C
Recommendation
,
W3C
Recommendation,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
2
May
2001.
2001.This
version
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/.
The
latest
version
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/.
9.2
Informational
References
-
[RDF-TESTS]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-testcases-20021112/">
RDF
Test
Cases
,
Jan
Grant
and
Dave
Beckett,
Editors.
Work
in
progress.
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
29
April
2002.
10
October
2003.
This
version
of
the
RDF
Test
Cases
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-testcases-20021112/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-testcases-20031010/
.
The
latest
version
of
the
RDF
Test
Cases
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
.
-
[RDF-PRIMER]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-primer-20020426/">
RDF
Primer
,
F.
Manola,
E.
Miller,
Editors,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium
W3C
Working
Draft,
work
in
progress,
26
April
2002.
10
October
2003.
This
version
of
the
RDF
Primer
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-primer-20020426/.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-primer-20031010/.
The
latest
version
of
the
RDF
Primer
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/.
-
[RDF-VOCABULARY]
-
RDF
Vocabulary
Description
Language
1.0:
RDF
Schema
,
Dan
Brickley,
R.V.
Guha,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
10
October
2003
(work
in
progress).
This
version
of
the
RDF
Vocabulary
Description
Language
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-schema-20031010/.
The
latest
version
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
.
-
[CHARMOD]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020220/">
Character
Model
for
the
World
Wide
Web
1.0
,
M.
Dürst,
F.
Yergeau,
R.
Ishida,
M.
Wolf,
A.
Freytag,
T
T.
Texin,
Editors,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium
Working
Draft,
work
in
progress,
20
February
2002.
22
August
2003.
This
version
of
the
Character
Model
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020220/.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-charmod-20030822/.
The
latest
version
of
the
Character
Model
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/.
-
[XML-1.1]
-
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/">
Extensible
Markup
Language
(XML)
1.1
,
John
Cowan,
Editor.
W3C
Candidate
Recommendation
15
October
2002.
This
version
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml11-20021015/.
The
latest
version
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/.
-
[XML-SCHEMA1]
-
XML
Schema
Part
1:
Structures
W3C
Recommendation,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium
Working
Draft
25
April
2002.
<i>
(Work
in
progress)
</i>
Consortium,
2
May
2001.
This
version
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/.
The
latest
version
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/.
-
[XML-NAMESPACES-1.1]
-
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/">
Namespaces
in
XML
1.1
,
Tim
Bray,
Dave
Hollander,
Andrew
Layman,
Richard
Tobin,
Editors.
World
Wide
Web
Consortium
Working
Draft
5
September
W3C
Candidate
Recommendation
18
December
2002.
<i>
(Work
in
progress)
</i>
This
version
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-names11-20021218/.
The
latest
version
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/.
-
[XML-INFOSET]
-
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/">
XML
Information
Set
,
John
Cowan
and
Richard
Tobin,
W3C
Recommendation,
24
October
2001.
This
document
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-infoset-20011024/.
The
latest
version
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/.
<!-- <dt>
<a id="ref-xmlschema0" name= "ref-xmlschema0">
-
[XPATH]
[XML-SCHEMA0]
</dt> <dd>
-
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/">
XML Schema Part 0: Primer - W3C Recommendation
</a>
</cite>, World Wide Web Consortium, 2 May 2001.
</dd> <dt>
<a id="ref-xmlschema1" name= "ref-xmlschema1">
XML
Path
Language
(XPath)
Version
1.0
deleted text:
[XML-SCHEMA1]
</dt> <dd>
<cite>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/">
XML Schema Part 1: Structures - W3C Recommendation
,
J.
Clark
and
S.
DeRose,
Editors.
World
Wide
Web
Consortium,
16
November
1999.
This
version
of
XPath
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116
.
The
latest
version
of
XPath
</cite>, World Wide Web Consortium, 2 May 2001.
</dd> -->
is
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath
.
-
[OWL]
-
<a href= "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-ref-20020729/">
OWL
Web
Ontology
Language
deleted text:
1.0
Reference
,
Mike
Dean,
Dan
Connolly,
Frank
van
Harmelen,
James
Hendler,
Ian
Horrocks,
Deborah
L.
McGuinness,
Peter
F.
Patel-Schneider,
and
Lynn
Andrea
Stein.
Guus
Schreiber.
W3C
Working
Draft
29
July
2002.
Candidate
Recommendation
18
August
2003.
Latest
version
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
.
-
deleted text:
<a id="ref-sowa" name="ref-sowa">
</a>
[SOWA]
</dt>
<dd>
<i>
Knowledge
Representation:
Logical,
Philosophical
and
Computational
Foundations
</i>,
John
F.
Sowa,
Brookes/Cole,
2000.
ISBN
0-534-94965-7.
</dd>
<!-- <dt>
<a id="ref-notation3" name= "ref-notation3">
</a>
[NOTATION3]
</dt> <dd>
Tim Berners-Lee, DesignIssues note on N3, ...
</dd> -->
<dt>
[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/.
-
<a id="ref-rdf-schema" name= "ref-rdf-schema">
[RDF-SCHEMA]
[XHTML]
-
XHTML
1.0
The
Extensible
HyperText
Markup
Language
(Second
Edition)
,
World
Wide
Web
Consortium.
26
January
2000,
revised
1
August
2002.
This
version
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/.
The
latest
version
of
XHTML
1
is
available
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/.
-
[IRI
draft]
-
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/">
Internationalized
Resource
Description
Framework
(RDF)
Schema
Specification
1.0
Identifiers
(IRIs)
,
Dan
Brickley
M.
Dürst
and
R.
V.
Guha,
W3C
Candidate
Recommendation,
27
March
2000.
M.
Suignard,
Internet-Draft,
June
2003,
expires
December
2003.
This
document
is
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/.
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-04
.
<!-- <dt>
We
divide
these
into
non-editorial
and
editorial.
The
non-editorial
changes
also
list
consquential
editorials
changes.
Editorial
changes
are
those
which
do
not
result
in
any
change
in
the
meaning
of
an
RDF
document
or
the
behaviour
of
an
RDF
application.
-
pfps-14
[TAP-RBD]
-
Deleted
section
4
about
social
meaning
.
cf
msg
from
meeting
at
tech
plenary
.
Also
removed
previous
section
2.2.8
("A
Basis
for
Binding
Agreements")
as
this
also
related
to
social
meaning.
Also:
removed
mention
in
section
3.3.
Datatypes
about
the
defining
authority
of
a
datatype
URI.
Small
consequential
changes
in
abstract
and
introduction
and
bulleted
list
at
start
of
section
2.2
.
Consequential
deletion
of
[HTTP]
and
[URI-REG]
references.
-
macgregor-01
,
macgregor-02
-
These
issues,
about
distinguishing
asserted
and
non-asserted
statements
and
propositional
attitudes,
aref
addressed
by
the
removal
of
section
4
,
which
raised
doubts
about
their
inclusion
in
RDF.
-
danc-02
goofy
literals
-
The
definition
of
literal
was
reworked
to
exclude
the
case
of
a
typed
literal
with
a
language
tag.
Also
changed
from
using
the
term
language
identifier
to
use
the
term
langauge
tag.
(
Section
3.4
also
affected).
See
also
WG
resolution
on
typed
literals
.
-
XMLLiteral
simplification
-
There
has
been
a
significant
simplication
in
this
part
of
the
document.
-
reagle-01
,
reagle-02
-
Exclusive
canonicalization
is
now
used
throughout,
and
the
lexical-to-value
mapping
has
been
simplified,
with
the
real
work
being
done
in
the
RDF
syntax
document.
Added
a
new
implementation
note
at
very
end
of
section
6
to
indicate
that
canonicalization
is
not
needed
for
some
RDF
applications.
-
language
tag
-
As
per
WG
resolution
this
is
no
longer
significant.
Consequential
changes
in
section
6.5.2
-
I18N
clarification
<i>
-
As
per
WG
decision
,
a
paragraph
is
added
to
section
3.4
to
encourage
use
of
XML
Literal
when
markup
may
be
required.
Added
informative
reference
to
[XHTML]
.
-
Wrapping
<a href="http://www.alpiri.org/protocol/rbd.html">
Reference by Description
-
This
is
dropped,
as
in
the
WG
resolution
.
-
value
space
-
The
current
text
was
approved
by
WG
decision
on
15th
August
.
-
references
-
The
old
reference
to
C14N
is
replaced
by
one
to
EXC-C14N
.
-
</i>, R. V. Guha: <a href="http://www.alpiri.org/protocol/rbd.html">
http://www.alpiri.org/protocol/rbd.html
</a>. (Related to the TAP project: <a href="http://tap.stanford.edu/">
http://tap.stanford.edu/
williams-02
).
</dd> -->
-
Given
changes
in
advice
from
I18N,
we
deleted
the
normalization
form
C
constraint
from
RDF
URI
references
definition
.
-
Removed
nomormative
dependency
on
RDFS
-
As
per
WG
decision
,
section
4
has
had
old
text
to
do
with
the
RDFS
namespace
deleted.
Consequential
editorial
changes.
[RDF-VOCABULARY]
changed
to
being
an
informative
reference.
Reference
to
old
version
of
schema
dropped.
-
absolute
URIs
-
The
normative
restriction
to
absolute
URIs
had
got
lost
in
the
LC
working
draft
due
to
editorial
error.
This
restriction
was
still
stated
in
informative
text.
The
phrase
"representing
an
absolute
URI
with
optional
fragment
identifier"
is
added
to
section
6.4
.
-
Clarifying
datatypes
-
The
normative
text
concerning
datatypes
is
reworked.
The
old
text
from
section
3.3
is
replaced
by
updated
text
in
section
5
.
Specific
changes
concern:
-
xmlsch-02
-
Concerning
the
whiteSpace
facet
is
also
addressed
by
that
same
note,
just
before
section
5.1.
-
xmlsch-03
-
we
globally
use
the
term
lexical-to-value
mapping
instead
of
datatype
mapping
or
any
other
term
-
xmlsch-04
-
We
do
not
change
the
definition
of
value
space
but
add
a
note,
just
before
section
5.1,
clarifying
the
relationship
with
XML
Schema
datatypes.
-
pfps-13
-
Concerning
facets
is
addressed
by
that
same
note,
just
before
section
5.1.
-
inappropriate
XML
schema
datatypes
-
A
link
to
the
new
discussion
in
RDF
Semantics
is
provided.
-
tex-01
-
Add
new
note
at
end
of
section
6.5
concerning
case
of
language
tags
-
williams-01
-
Reworked
text
in
section
3.2
to
be
more
consistent
with
view
of
URIs
as
nodes
(rather
than
node
labels).
Included
revised
introduction
of
node
concept
in
section
3.1.
Used
some
of
Pat
Hayes'
suggested
text
in
section
3.1.
Also
some
impact
on
rewording
in
section
2.2.6.
Some
further
small
reworking
of
sections
3.1,
3.2
in
response
to
RDFcore
mailing
list
comments.
Added
last
sentence
to
section
6.6
.
-
Changed
arc
to
predicate
in
section
3.4
-
predicate
or
property
-
Section
3.1,
replace
use
of
"property"
by
"predicate",
also
in
picture
.
Similarly,
other
uses
throughout
the
document.
The
term
"property"
still
appears,
but
"predicate"
is
now
used
as
the
lead
term.
The
naming
convention
is
that
predicate,
node,
triple
are
preferred
as
syntactic
terms;
property,
resource,
statement
are
preferred
as
semantic
terms.
-
Related
to
pfps-15
on
the
Primer
-
Deleted
section
2.2.7
(which
didn't
say
anything
not
already
covered
by
section
2.2.6),
and
revised
title
and
wording
of
section
2.2.6
.
-
pfps-22
,
pfps-23
-
Revised
text
in
section
4
to
clarify
role
of
RDF(S)
vocabulary.
Also
changed
term
"URI"
to
"URI
reference".
-
After
further
discussion
with
the
commentator,
further
changes
were
agreed
by
the
WG.
-
FragID
clarifications
-
Reworked
text
in
section
7
to
clarify
its
intent,
and
added
note
that
retrieval
of
resource
representation
is
not
required
.
This
in
response
to
last-call
comments
from
Stuart
Williams
and
Massimo
Marchiori
.
-
Removed
term
RDF
Core
-
As
per
WG
decision
,
the
term
RDF
Core
has
been
replaced
throughout.
In
particular
title
of
section
4
changed.
Minor
changes
to
section
1
,
and
the
body
of
section
4
.
-
language
identifier
vs
language
tag
-
globally
replaced
"langauge
identifier"
with
"language
tag"
-
Namespace
name
-
Also
changed
"namespace
URI"
to
"namespace
name",
to
be
more
consistent
with
XML
namespace
termonology.
-
pfps-18
-
While
this
comment
was
accepted,
it
has
not
resulted
in
any
changes
in
this
documented.
-
danc-01
-
s/equal/equivalent/
in
section
6.3
-
xmlsch-06
natural
language
data
-
s/should/may/
in
section
3.4
.
-
pfps-16
-
Removed
one
false
sentence
from
section
3.5
concerning
expressive
power;
and
consequentially
[SOWA]
reference
.
-
deleted
editors
note
concerning
tag
issue
IRI-Everywhere
-
Renumbering
-
Renumbered
previous
section
3.7
to
section
4
,
as
it
doesn't
really
seem
to
belong
in
"Concepts"
(and
to
minimize
renumbering
of
the
document).
-
Renumbered
old
section
5
as
5.1
,
and
moved
the
normative
text
of
old
section
3.3
to
become
the
new
section
5
,
leaving
the
new
section
3.3
as
informative.
-
Permitted
additionally
clarification
in
bulleted
list
in
introduction
as
to
which
parts
of
this
documents
are
normative.
-
Consequential
changes
to
section
1.1
.
-
Typos
from
XMLSCH-WG
-
s/syntacticly/syntactically/
in
section
6.5.2
.
-
s/element
tag/element/
in
section
5.1
,
note
the
text
has
changed
so
that
the
exact
instance
of
the
problem
did
not
occur,
but
the
term,
as
corrected
still
does.
-
s/XML
element
content/XML
data/
in
section
5.1
.
-
Polishing
-
Deleted
most
of
some
spurious
repetitive
discursive
text
in
section
1.1
,
moved
contentful
phrase
into
section
1.
-
Minor
changes
in
bulleted
list
at
start
of
section
2.2
-
Minor
fix
to
reference
in
note
of
section
2.2.1
-
Two
word
simplification
in
bullet
list
at
start
of
section
3
-
s/Representation/RDF
Expression/
in
title
of
section
3.5
-
s/and/combined
with/
in
second
bullet
in
section
3.4
-
added
"set
of"
to
definition
of
nodes
-
Replaced
"The
language
tags
of
the
two
lexical
forms
compare
equal."
with
"The
language
tags,
if
any,
compare
equal.
"
in
section
6.5.1
.
-
Added
"of
blank
nodes"
to
section
6.6
-
Updated
figure
and
changed
ZIP
to
POSTALCODE
in
3.5
to
track
changes
in
the
primer.
-
Deleted
duplicate
sentence
at
end
of
in
section
6.5.2
.
-
Added
"mentioned"
to
section
1
.
-
removed
italics
from
lingua
franca
2.1
-
s/which/that/
in
section
3.4
-
s/objects/things/
in
section
3.5
-
s/relates
only/only
relates/
in
section
6.5
-
References
-
Updated
links
to
[OWL]
,
[XML-NAMESPACES-1.1]
,
[XML-1.1]
,
[CHARMOD]
,
[RDF-MIME-TYPE]
.
Used
dated
URIs
where
possible:
change
to
[XML-NAMESPACES-1.1]
,
[XML-1.1]
,
[XML-SCHEMA2]
,
[XML-INFOSET]
.
New
reference
to
XML
Schema
part
1
.
We
divide
these
into
non-editorial
and
editorial.
The
non-editorial
changes
also
list
consquential
editorials
changes.
Editorial
changes
are
those
which
do
not
result
in
any
change
in
the
meaning
of
an
RDF
document
or
the
behaviour
of
an
RDF
application.
-
IRIs
-
Excluded
control
characters
from
RDF
URI
References
.
-
Added
note
in
same
section,
permitting
implementors
to
read
and
partially
act
on
IRI-draft.
-
Added
informative
reference
to
IRI
draft
.
-
NFC
-
Weakened
the
language
concerning
Normal
Form
C
from
MUST
to
SHOULD,
as
agreed
on
3rd
October
.
-
More
NFC
-
Added
text
in
section
3.4
Literals
suggesting
reading
Charmod
