RDF语义 推荐标准
TransWiki - W3CHINA.ORG开放翻译计划（OTP）
(/)
RDF 语义
RDF Semantics
W3C 推荐标准 2004年2月10日
W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004
当前版本:
This Version:
/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/)
最新版本:
Latest Version:
/TR/rdf-mt/ (/TR/rdf-mt/)
前期版本:
Previous Version:
/TR/2003/PR-rdf-mt-20031215/ (/TR/2003/PR-rdf-mt-20031215/)
编者:
Editor:
Patrick Hayes (www.ihmc.us/users/user.php?UserID=42) (IHMC)< phayes@ihmc.us (mailto:phayes@ihmc.us)>
丛书编辑:
Series Editor
Brian McBride (www-uk.hpl.hp/people/bwm/) (Hewlett Packard Labs)<bwm@hplb.hpl.hp (mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp)>
Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections.
See also translations (/2001/sw/RDFCore/translation/rdf-mt).
Copyright (/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright) ? 2004 W3C? (MIT, ERCIM, Keio (www.keio.ac.jp/)), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability (/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer), trademark (/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks), document use (/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents) and software licensing (/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software) rules apply.
摘要 [Abstract]
这是一个RDF及RDF计划精确的语义说明书和相应完善推理法则系统。
This is a specification of a precise semantics, and corresponding complete systems of inference rules, for the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS).
Status of this Document 文件状态
这篇文档已经由W3C成员和其他感兴趣的用户评审，并由指导者作为W3C建议签署。在创建建议中W3C的角是关注它的规范并促进它的广泛使用。这增强了Web的功能性和互操作性。
This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties, and it has been endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation (/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#RecsW3C). W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.
这是六篇文档中的中的一篇（入门，概念，语法，语义，词汇集和测试案例），它们共同来
代替原始的RDF规范、RDF模型和语法（1999年的建议）及RDF Schema（2000年的候选建议）。它由RDF核心工作组作为W3C语义Web活动的一部分所开发，并在2004年2月10日发表。
This is one document in a set of six (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Introduction) (Primer (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/), Concepts (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/), Syntax (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/), Semantics (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/), Vocabulary (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/), and Test Cases (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/)) intended to jointly replace the original Resource Description Framework specifications, RDF Model and Syntax (1999 Recommendation) (/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/) and RDF Schema (2000 Candidate Recommendation) (/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/). It has been developed by the RDF Core Working Group (/2001/sw/RDFCore/) as part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity (/2001/sw/) (Activity Statement (/2001/sw/Activity), Group Charter (/2002/11/swv2/charters/RDFCoreWGCharter)) for publication on 10 February 2004.
从提议的建议工作草图提出以来，对这篇文档的修改都详细记录在修改日志中。公众都被邀请发送评论到，并通过来参与相关技术的常规讨论。
Changes to this document since the Proposed Recommendation Working Draft are detailed in the change log.
The public is invited to send comments to (mailto:) (archive (/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/)) and to par
ticipate in general discussion of related technology on (archive).
这里有一个实现的列表可用。
A list of implementations (/2001/sw/RDFCore/impls) is available.
关于这项工作，W3C保留了一个所有专利泄露的列表。
The W3C maintains a list of any patent disclosures related to this work.
本节描述了该文档在发布时的状态。其他文档可能会取代这篇文档。当前W3C发布的文献和这篇技术报告最新的修订版的列表可以在/TR/ 中的W3C技术报告索引中到。
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 (/TR/) at /TR/.
Table of Contents目录
0. Introduction (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#prelim)[/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#intro ]


     0.1 Specifying a formal semantics: scope and limitations (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#intro)

     0.2 Graph Syntax (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#graphsyntax)

     0.3 Graph Definitions (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#graphdefs)

1. Interpretations (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#sinterp)

     1.1 Technical Note (Informative) (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#technote)

     1.2 URI references, Resources and Literals (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#urisandlit)

     1.3 Interpretations (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#interp)

     1.4 Denotations of Ground Graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#gddenot)

     1.5 Blank nodes as Existential variables (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#unlabel)

2. Simple Entailment between RDF graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#entail)

     2.1 Vocabulary interpretations and vocabulary entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#vocabulary_entail)

3. Interpreting the RDF vocabulary (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#InterpVocab)

     3.1 RDF Interpretations (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFINTERP)

     3.2 RDF Entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rdf_entail)

     3.3 Reification, Containers, Collections and rdf:value (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ReifAndCont)


       3.3.1 Reification (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#Reif)

       3.3.2 RDF Containers (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#Containers)

       3.3.3 RDF Collections (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#collections)

       3.3.4 rdf:value (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rdfValue)

4. Interpreting the RDFS Vocabulary (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rdfs_interp)

     4.1 RDFS Interpretations (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFSINTERP)

     4.2 Extensional Semantic Conditions (Informative) (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ExtensionalDomRang)

     4.3 A Note on rdfs:Literal (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#literalnote)

     4.4 RDFS Entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rdfs_entailment)

5. Interpreting Datatypes (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#dtype_interp)

     5.1 Datatyped Interpretations (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#DTYPEINTERP)

     5.2 D-Entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#D_entailment)

6. Monotonicity of Semantic Extensions (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#MonSemExt)

7. Entailment Rules (Informative) (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#rules)

     7.1 Simple Entailment Rules (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#simpleRules)


     7.2 RDF Entailment Rules (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFRules)

     7.3 RDFS Entailment Rules (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFSRules)

       7.3.1 Extensional Entailment Rules (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFSExtRules)

     7.4 Datatype Entailment Rules (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#DtypeRules)

Appendix A. Proofs of lemmas (Informative) (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#prf)
Appendix B. Glossary (Informative) (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#gloss)
Appendix C. Acknowledgements (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ack)
References (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#refs)
Appendix D. Change Log (Informative)
目录
1 0. Introduction 介绍
1.1 0.1 Specifying a formal semantics: scope and limitations指定一个形式语义:范围和局限性
1.2 0.2 Graph Syntax
1.3 0.3 Graph Definitions 段落
0. Introduction 介绍
0.1 Specifying a formal semantics: scope and limitations指定一个形式语义:范围和局限性
RDF is an assertional language intended to be used to express propositions (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossProposition) using precise formal vocabularies, particularly those specified using RDFS [RDF-VOCABULARY (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-rdf-vocabulary)], for access and use over the World Wide Web, and is intended to provide a basic foundation for more advanced assertional languages with a similar purpose. The overall design goals emphasise generality and precision in expressing propositions about any topic, rather than conformity to any particular processing model: see the RDF Concepts document (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/) [RDF-CONCEPTS (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-rdf-concepts)] for more discussion.
Exactly what is considered to be the 'meaning' of an assertion (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossAssertion) in RDF or RDFS in some broad sense may depend on many factors, including social conventions, comments in natural language or links to other content-bearing documents. Much of this meaning will be inaccessible to machine processing and is mentioned here only to emphasize that the form
al (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossFormal) semantics (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossSemantic) described in this document is not intended to provide a full analysis of 'meaning' in this broad sense; that would be a large research topic. The semantics given here restricts itself to a formal (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossFormal) notion of meaning which could be characterized as the part that is common to all other accounts of meaning, and can be captured in mechanical inference (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInference) rules.
This document uses a basic technique called model theory (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossModeltheory) for specifying the semantics of a formal language. Readers unfamiliar with model theory may find the glossary (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#gloss) in appendix B helpful; throughout the text, uses of terms in a technical sense are linked to their glossary definitions. Model theory assumes that the language refers to a 'world (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossWorld)', 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 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossWorld) is called an interpretation (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInterpretation), so that model theory (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossModeltheory) 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, thereby retaining as much generality as possible. The chief utility of a formal semantic theo
ry is not to provide any deep analysis of the nature of the things being described by the language or to suggest any particular processing model, but rather to provide a technical way to determine when inference processes are valid (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossValid), i.e. when they preserve truth. This provides the maximal freedom for implementations while preserving a globally coherent notion of meaning.
Model theory tries to be metaphysically (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossMetaphysical) and ontologically (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossOntological) neutral. It is typically couched in the language of set theory simply because that is the normal language of mathematics - for example, this semantics assumes that names denote things in a set IR called the 'universe (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossUniverse)' - but the use of set-theoretic language here is not supposed to imply that the things in the universe are set-theoretic in nature. Model theory is usually most relevant to implementation via the notion of entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossEntail), described later, which makes it possible to define valid (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossValid) inference (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInference) rules.
An alternative way to specify a semantics is to give a translation from RDF into a formal logic with a model theory (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossModeltheory) already attached, as it were. This 'axiomatic semantics' approach has been suggested and used previously with various alternative versions of the target logi
cal language [Conen&Klapsing (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-ConKla)] [Marchiori&Saarela (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-MarSaa)] [McGuinness&al (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-daml-axiomat)]. Such a translation for RDF and RDFS is also given in the Lbase specification [LBASE (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-Lbase)]. The axiomatic semantics style has some advantages for machine processing and may be more readable, but in the event that any axiomatic semantics fails to conform to the model-theoretic semantics described in this document, the model theory should be taken as normative.
There are several aspects of meaning in RDF which are ignored by this semantics; in particular, it treats URI references as simple names, ignoring aspects of meaning encoded in particular URI forms [RFC 2396 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-2369)] and does not provide any analysis of time-varying data or of changes to URI references. It does not provide any analysis of indexical (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossIndexical) uses of URI references, for example to mean 'this document'. Some parts of the RDF and RDFS vocabularies are not assigned any formal meaning, and in some cases, notably the reification and container vocabularies, it assigns less meaning than one might expect. These cases are noted in the text and the limitations discussed in more detail. RDF is an assertional logic (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossLogic), in which each triple expresses a simple proposition (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossProposition). This imposes a fairly strict spring framework表达式assignmonotonic (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossMonotonic) discipline on the language, so that it cannot express closed-world assumpt
ions, local default preferences, and several other commonly used non-monotonic (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossNonmonotonic) constructs.
Particular uses of RDF, including as a basis for more expressive languages such as DAML+OIL [DAML (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-daml)] and OWL [OWL (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-owl)], may impose further semantic conditions in addition to those described here, and such extra semantic conditions can also be imposed on the meanings of terms in particular RDF vocabularies. Extensions or dialects of RDF which are obtained by imposing such extra semantic conditions may be referred to as semantic extensions of RDF. Semantic extensions of RDF are constrained in this recommendation using the keywords MUST , MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY of [RFC 2119 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-2119)]. Semantic extensions of RDF MUST conform to the semantic conditions for simple interpretations described in sections 1.3 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#interp) and 1.4 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#gddenot) and 1.5 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#unlabel) and those for RDF interpretations described in section 3.1 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFINTERP) of this document. Any name for entailment in a semantic extension SHOULD be indicated by the use of a vocabulary entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#vocabulary_entail) term. The semantic conditions imposed on an RDF semantic extension MUST define a notion of vocabulary entailment (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#vocabulary_entail) which is valid (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossValid) according to the model-theoretic semantics described in the normative parts of this do
cument; except that if the semantic extension is defined on some syntactically restricted subset of RDF graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#defgraph), then the semantic conditions need only apply to this subset. Specifications of such syntactically restricted semantic extensions MUST include a specification of their syntactic conditions which are sufficient to enable software to distinguish unambiguously those RDF graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#defgraph) to which the extended semantic conditions apply. Applications based on such syntactically restricted semantic extensions MAY treat RDF graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#defgraph) which do not conform to the required syntactic restrictions as syntax errors.
An example of a semantic extension of RDF is RDF Schema [RDF-VOCABULARY (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-rdf-vocabulary)], abbreviated as RDFS, the semantics of which are defined in later parts of this document. RDF Schema imposes no extra syntactic restrictions.
0.2 Graph Syntax
Any semantic theory must be attached to a syntax. This semantics is defined as a mapping on the abstract syntax (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Graph-syntax) of RDF described in the RDF concepts and abstract syntax document [RDF-CONCEPTS (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-rdf-concepts)]. This document uses the following terminology defined there:
URI reference, literal, plain literal, typed literal, XML literal, XML value, node, blank node, triple and RDF graph. Throughout this document we use the term 'character string' or 'string' to refer to a sequence of Unicode characters, and 'language tag' in the sense of RFC 3066, c.f. section 6.5 (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Graph-Literal) in [RDF-CONCEPTS (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-rdf-concepts)]. Note that strings in an RDF graph SHOULD be in Normal Form C.
This document uses the N-Triples (/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples) syntax described in the RDF test cases document [RDF-TESTS (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ref-rdf-tests)] to describe RDF graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#defgraph). This notation uses a node identifier (/TR/rdf-testcases/#bNode) (nodeID) convention to indicate blank nodes in the triples of a graph. While node identifiers such as '_:xxx' serve to identify blank nodes in the surface syntax, these expressions are not considered to be the label of the graph node they identify; they are not names, and do not occur in the actual graph. In particular, the RDF graphs (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#defgraph) described by two N-Triples documents (/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples) which differ only by re-naming their node identifiers will be understood to be equivalent (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-graph-equality) . This re-naming convention should be understood as applying only to whole documents, since re-naming the node identifiers in part of a document may result in a document describing a different RDF graph (/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#defgraph).
The N-Triples syntax requires that URI references be given in full, enclosed in angle brackets. In the interests of brevity, the imaginary URI scheme 'ex:' is used to provide illustrative examples. To obtain a more realistic view of the normal appearance of the N-Triples syntax, the reader should imagine this replaced with something like '/rdf/mt/artificial-example/'. The QName prefixes rdf:, rdfs: and xsd: are defined as follows:
Prefix rdf: namespace URI: /1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
Prefix rdfs: namespace URI: /2000/01/rdf-schema#
Prefix xsd: namespace URI: /2001/XMLSchema#
Since QName syntax is not legal N-Triples syntax, and in the interests of brevity and readability, examples use the convention whereby a QName is used without surrounding angle brackets to indicate the corresponding URI reference enclosed in angle brackets, e.g. the triple
<ex:a> rdf:type rdfs:Class .
should be read as an abbreviation for the N-Triples syntax
<ex:a> </1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>; </2000/01/rdf-schema#Class>; .
In stating general semantic conditions, single characters or character sequences without a colon indicate an arbitrary name, blank node, character string and so on. The exact meaning will be specified in context.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。