Resource Description Framework

  • Jeff Z. PanEmail author
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


This chapter introduces Resource Description Framework (RDF), the W3C recommendation for semantic annotations in the Semantic Web. It will cover the syntax and semantics of RDF, as well as its relation with the W3C OWL Web Ontology Language. To address the mismatch between RDF and OWL-DL, the most expressive decidable fragment of the OWL standard, we introduce a novel variant of RDF(S), called RDFS-FA, which provides a solid semantic foundation for many of the latest Description Logic-based SW ontology languages, such as OWL-DL and OWL2-DL.


Resource Description Framework Contextual Approach Uniform Resource Identifier Resource Description Framework Graph Blank Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    H. Alvestrand. Rfc 3066 – tags for the identification of languages. Technical report, IETF, Jan 2001.
  2. 2.
    Tim Berners-Lee. Realising the Full Potential of the Web. W3C Document, URL, Dec 1997.
  3. 3.
    T. Berners-lee. Semantic Web Road Map. W3C Design Issues. URL, Oct. 1998.
  4. 4.
    J. Broekstra, M. Klein, S. Decker, D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, and I. Horrocks. Enabling knowledge representation on the web by extending rdf schema. In Proc. of the International World Wide Web Conference, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DCMI. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description. DCMI Recommendation, URL, June 2003.
  6. 6.
    J. de Bruijn, E. Franconi, and S. Tessaris. Logical reconstruction of normative RDF. In OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joint W3C/IETF URI Planning Interest Group. URIs, URLs, and URNs: Clarifications and Recommendations 1.0. URL, 2001. W3C Note.
  8. 8.
    T. R. Gruber. Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing, chapter of Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer Academic, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Hayes. RDF Semantics. Technical report, W3C, Feb 2004. W3C recommendation,
  10. 10.
    I. Horrocks and P. F. Patel-Schneider. Three Theses of Representation in the Semantic Web. In Proc. of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference, pages 39–47. ACM, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language. Journal of Web Semantics, 1(1):7–26, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies. Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics. In Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning, pages 161–180, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Klyne and J. J. Carroll. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. URL, Feb 2004. Series Editor: Brian McBride.
  14. 14.
    F. Manola and E. Miller. RDF Primer, W3C Recommendation. URL, Feb 2004. Series Editor: Brian McBride.
  15. 15.
    B. Motik. On the Properties of Metamodeling in OWL. In Proc. of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Nejdl, M. Wolpers, and C. Capella. The RDF Schema Specification Revisited. In Modelle und Modellierungssprachen in Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik, Modellierung 2000, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Noy. Representing Classes as Property Values on the Semantic Web, Jul. 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Z. Pan and I. Horrocks. Metamodeling Architecture of Web Ontology Languages. In Proceeding of the Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Z. Pan and I. Horrocks. RDFS(FA) and RDF MT: Two Semantics for RDFS. In Proc. of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Z. Pan and I. Horrocks. OWL-Eu: Adding Customised Datatypes into OWL. Journal of Web Semantics, 4(1):29–48, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Z. Pan and I. Horrocks. RDFS(FA): Connecting RDF(S) and OWL DL. In IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pages 192–206, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Z. Pan, I. Horrocks, and G. Schreiber. OWL FA: A Metamodeling Extension of OWL DL. In Proc. of OWLED2005, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. F. Patel-Schneider. Layering the Semantic Web: Problems and Directions. In Proc. of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. F. Patel-Schneider. Two Proposals for a Semantic Web Ontology Language. In Proc. of the International Description Logic Workshop, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. F. Patel-Schneider, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks. OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax. Technical report, W3C, Feb. 2004. W3C Recommendation.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    PICS. Platform for Internet Content Selectivity., 1997.
  27. 27.
    D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs. HTML 4.01 Specification. W3C Recommendation,, dEC. 1999.
  28. 28.
    H. J. ter Horst. Extending the RDFS Entailment Lemma. In Proc. of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference, pages 77–91, 2004.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. J. ter Horst. Completeness, Decidability and Complexity of Entailment for RDF Schema and a Semantic Extension Involving the OWL Vocabulary. Journal of Web Semantic, 3(2), 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Uschold and M. Gruninger. Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations