DOCSLIB.ORG

RDF RDF Facts Resource

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RDF RDF Facts Resource Internet Engineering RDF -Resource Description Framework Tomasz Babaczy ńskii , Zofia Kruczkiewicz Tomasz Kubik Information systems modelling – UML and service description languages RDF RDF facts • It is a framework for representing information about • W3C Recommendation on 10 February 2004 resources in a graph form – primarily intended to describe metadata about WWW – RDF-CONCEPTS, resources – RDF-SYNTAX, – can be used to describe anything that can be identified on the Web, even if it is not accessible – RDF-VOCABULARY, • RDF description can be read and understand by – RDF-SEMANTICS, computers, and exchanged without loss of meaning • W3C maintains RDF in the scope of its Semantic Web – RDF-TESTS, RDF-PRIMER Activity Resource URI • Uniform Resource Identifier is a global, rigid resource identifier with the • RDF can represent anything that can be named: an following syntax: object, act, or concept: – Abstract ideas as “classess”, “properties”, “groups”, “sets” scheme ":" hier_part ["?" query ] [ # fragment ] – Abstract terms, as “love” or “money” scheme – string (a letter followed by letters, digits, and ["+"|"."|"-"] ) – Real world objects, as “rock” or “sand” hier_part – has the following syntax: – Web resourvces [userInfo "@"] hostname [:port_number] [path] query – optional information, commonly organized as a sequence of: – … <key>=<value> pairs , separated by ";" or "&" • In RDF sense “named” means “identified by URI” fragment – optional part (local reference) • RDF uses URIs to identify resources, or, more Example: precisely, URIRefs. http://example.org/family.rdf#fatherOf URIRef IRI • The syntax of URI has been defined in [RFC2396] and updated in [RFC2732] • Internationalized Resource Identifier is a a complement to URI • The current generic URI syntax specification is [RFC3986]. • provides wider repertoire of characters allowed • URI can be absolute or relative: – Unicode/ISO10646 characters beyond U+007F – Absolute : a resource is identified with full and context independent – private characters of that set can occur only in query parts resource reference • Standardized in [RFC3987] that defines "internationalized" – Relative : a reference has not given full information to identify a resource and missing information must be derived from the context versions corresponding to other constructs from [RFC3986], • A URIRef is relative form of URI such as URI references. – consists of URI and optional fragment preceded by # • In many cases URI and IRI are used interchangeably, but – absolute URI of #section2 from the document practical replacement of URIs (or URI references) by IRIs (or http://www.example.org/index.html is IRI references) depends on the application. http://www.example.org/index.html#section2 Statement Remarks on statements • RDF is based on Graph data model • RDF model = set of RDF triples • Represented by the triple : <subject, predicate, object> . – The triple links one object ( subject ) to another object ( object ) or a triple = (subject, predicate, object) = statement literal via a property ( predicate ). • – In other words: a resource ( subject ) has a property ( predicate ) valued – subject = resource by property value ( object ). • RDF requires that: – predicate = property (of the resource) – subject has URI or is b-node ; – predicate has URI; – object = value (of the property) – object has URI, is b-node or is literal. • URIRefs identify subject, predicate, and object • The same URI can be assigned to a node and to an arc as well. Remarks on namespaces RDF Graph • Graphical representation of a triple • Some domain names appearing in the URL – subject and object nodes are resources authority part have been reserved for testing Predicate or other similar uses [RFC2606] Subject Object • example.com , example.net , or example.org do not refer to any existing – object node is a literal resources but serve for illustrative purposes Predicate Subject Object RDF graph example Complex values • “John Smith is a father of Susan Smith” • Each triple in RDF graph is known as a ‘property’. • Nodes may have more than one arc originating from them, http://example.org/family.rdf#fatherOf mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] indicating that multiple propertyTypes are associated with the same resource. http://example.org/family.rdf#name http://example.org/family.rdf#name • Groups of multiple properties are known as ‘descriptions’. • PropertyTypes may point to simple atomic values (strings and "John Smith"^^xsd:string "Susan Smith"^^xsd:string numbers) or to more complex values that are themselves made up of collections of properties. • Both persons are identified by their e-mail addresses and their names are • syntactically, the values can be embedded (lexically in-line) or provided as typed literals. referenced (linked) More complicated RDF graph blank node (b-node ) • is a node of RDF graph, which is not identified by a URI and rdf:type rdf:bag URI-p1 is not a literal rdf:_1 • informal model with a URI-0 URI-p2 • is a graph scoped identifier that cannot be directly URI-1 Literal-1 bag URI-p0 URI-p4 rdf:_2 referenced from outside URI-2 URI-p3 Literal-0 URI-4 is used mainly for graph branching as for representing rdf:_3 • URI-p2 URI-3 Literal-3 higher arity relations URI-0 Literal-4 URI-p2 URI-p1 URI-1 Literal-1 it can be used only as a subject or an object of a RDF triple. URI-p0 • URI-2 URI-p3 URI-4 • it cannot be used as a predicate (in in some syntaxes like • formal model with a Literal-0 N3 it is acceptable to use a blank node as a predicate) URI-p2 URI-3 Literal-3 Literal-4 bag and a blank node URI-p4 • Using b-nodes may cause problems in merging or querying – possible node ID conflicts (merging) – temporary node ID assignments (querying) RDF graph labeling Literals • All literals are Unicode strings and represents value such as • URI can be a subject, a predicate or an object string or number • Literals cannot be the subjects of statements, only the objects of a triple (target nodes in the RDF graphs). • only URI can be a predicate of a triple • Literals can be either plain literals (without type) or typed literals • only URI and bnode can be a subject of a triple – Plain literals can have an optional language tag assigned in form of a suffix starting with @ followed by the language code string (as defined • bnode , URI or literal can be an object of a by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase). – Typed literals have a lexical form ending with a suffix being RDF datatype triple URI reference (as in XML Schema Datatypes or an URI of custom datatype defined). The suffix starts with two caret characters ^^. Typed literals RDF datatype • Not all XML Schema datatypes are suitable for the use in RDF. • There is no built-in concept of numbers or dates or – xsd:duration – does not have a well-defined value space; other common values in RDF – xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY – require an enclosing XML • RDF predefines just one datatype: rdf:XMLLiteral, document context; which is used for embedding XML in RDF – xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF – are for cross references within an • There is no mechanism for defining new datatypes as XML document; well – xsd:NOTATION – is not intended for direct use; – It is expected that any new datatypes will be provided – xsd:IDREFS, xsd:ENTITIES and xsd:NMTOKENS – are separately, and identified with URI references, as XML sequence-valued datatypes which do not fit the RDF Schema datatypes defined in [XML-SCHEMA2]. datatype model. Higher-order statements Reification • Allows to build higher-order statements, i.e. statements • One can make RDF statements about other RDF statements about other RDF statements – “Ralph believes that the web contains one billion documents” • Models of other statements must be created. – “the creator of the statement that the creator of the document on RDF • New statements becomes new and accessible resources syntax is Ora Lassila is the Library of Congress” • RDF built-in predicate vocabulary for reification: • Higher-order statements – rdf:subject said Anne – allow us to express beliefs (and other modalities) – rdf:predicate – are important for trust models, digital signatures,etc. – rdf:object rdf:subject rdf:predicate rdf:object – also: metadata about metadata – rdf:type – are represented by modeling RDF in RDF itself reification John likes Mary “Anne said that John likes Mary" RDF serialization RDF and RDF Schema (RDFS) • A set of URIRefs is known as a vocabulary • Serialization provides a way to convert between the • RDF vocabulary contains basic terms for expressing simple abstract RDF model to a concrete format, such as a statements about resources, using named properties and values [RDF-CONCEPTS]. file or other byte stream. The most popular methods • RDFS vocabulary extends RDF vocabulary providing of RDF graphs serialization are: mechanisms for describing properties and relationships between these properties and other resources [RDF- – RDF/XML, Terse RDF Triple Language (Turtle), and N- VOCABULARY]. Triples. • RDF and RDFS vocabularies can describe relationships • Serialization preserves the constructs of the original between items from multiple vocabularies developed independently, usually with the aid of XML namespace RDF graph. names. OOP and RDF RDF vocabulary • In object oriented-programming languages class definition: – implies the characteristic of the instances • namespace: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# – is done in terms of the properties its instances may have • In RDF properties definitions implies the class membership of RDF property and RDF reification RDF container RDF collection the instance. type vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary – RDF describes properties in terms of the classes of resource to which rdf:Property rdf:Statement rdf:Seq rdf:List they apply rdf:type rdf:subject rdf:Bag rdf:first – If an instance has a certain property asserted with a domain defined, rdf:XMLLiteral rdf:predicate rdf:Alt rdf:rest this domain specifies the class of this instance rdf:value rdf:object rdf:_1 rdf:nil • Naming convention rdf:_2 – the class’s names starts with an upper case letter ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantics Developer's Guide
    MarkLogic Server Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide 2 MarkLogic 10 May, 2019 Last Revised: 10.0-8, October, 2021 Copyright © 2021 MarkLogic Corporation. All rights reserved. MarkLogic Server MarkLogic 10—May, 2019 Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide—Page 2 MarkLogic Server Table of Contents Table of Contents Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide 1.0 Introduction to Semantic Graphs in MarkLogic ..........................................11 1.1 Terminology ..........................................................................................................12 1.2 Linked Open Data .................................................................................................13 1.3 RDF Implementation in MarkLogic .....................................................................14 1.3.1 Using RDF in MarkLogic .........................................................................15 1.3.1.1 Storing RDF Triples in MarkLogic ...........................................17 1.3.1.2 Querying Triples .......................................................................18 1.3.2 RDF Data Model .......................................................................................20 1.3.3 Blank Node Identifiers ..............................................................................21 1.3.4 RDF Datatypes ..........................................................................................21 1.3.5 IRIs and Prefixes .......................................................................................22 1.3.5.1 IRIs ............................................................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing
    RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing A collection of attributes and processing rules for extending XHTML to support RDF W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904 Diff from previous version: rdfa-syntax-diff.html Editors: Ben Adida, Creative Commons [email protected] Mark Birbeck, webBackplane [email protected] Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. [email protected] Steven Pemberton, CWI Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version, ZIP archive, and Gzip’d TAR archive. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The current Web is primarily made up of an enormous number of documents that have been created using HTML. These documents contain significant amounts of structured data, which is largely unavailable to tools and applications. When publishers can express this data more completely, and when tools can read it, a new world of user functionality becomes available, letting users transfer structured data between applications and web sites, and allowing browsing applications to improve the user experience: an event on a web page can be directly imported - 1 - How to Read this Document RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing into a user’s desktop calendar; a license on a document can be detected so that users can be informed of their rights automatically; a photo’s creator, camera setting information, resolution, location and topic can be published as easily as the original photo itself, enabling structured search and sharing.
    [Show full text]
  • EAN.UCC XML Architectural Guide Version 1.0 July 2001
    EAN·UCC System The Global Language of Business ® EAN.UCC XML Architectural Guide Version 1.0 July 2001 COPYRIGHT 2001, EAN INTERNATIONAL™ AND UNIFORM CODE COUNCIL, INC.Ô EAN.UCC Architectural Guide EAN·UCC System The Global Language of Business ® Table of Contents Document History........................................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Overview......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Extensions in UML............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1.1 Common Core Components ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 In A Nutshell: A Business Process Document......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Other Related Documents ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2. Implementation Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Schema Language ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to RDF
    An Introduction to RDF Knowledge Technologies 1 Manolis Koubarakis Acknowledgement • This presentation is based on the excellent RDF primer by the W3C available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/ and http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/ . • Much of the material in this presentation is verbatim from the above Web site. Knowledge Technologies 2 Manolis Koubarakis Presentation Outline • Basic concepts of RDF • Serialization of RDF graphs: XML/RDF and Turtle • Other Features of RDF (Containers, Collections and Reification). Knowledge Technologies 3 Manolis Koubarakis What is RDF? •TheResource Description Framework (RDF) is a data model for representing information (especially metadata) about resources in the Web. • RDF can also be used to represent information about things that can be identified on the Web, even when they cannot be directly retrieved on the Web (e.g., a book or a person). • RDF is intended for situations in which information about Web resources needs to be processed by applications, rather than being only displayed to people. Knowledge Technologies 4 Manolis Koubarakis Some History • RDF draws upon ideas from knowledge representation, artificial intelligence, and data management, including: – Semantic networks –Frames – Conceptual graphs – Logic-based knowledge representation – Relational databases • Shameless self-promotion : The closest to RDF, pre-Web knowledge representation language is Telos: John Mylopoulos, Alexander Borgida, Matthias Jarke, Manolis Koubarakis: Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8(4): 325-362 (1990). Knowledge Technologies 5 Manolis Koubarakis The Semantic Web “Layer Cake” Knowledge Technologies 6 Manolis Koubarakis RDF Basics • RDF is based on the idea of identifying resources using Web identifiers and describing resources in terms of simple properties and property values.
    [Show full text]
  • On Blank Nodes
    On Blank Nodes Alejandro Mallea1, Marcelo Arenas1, Aidan Hogan2, and Axel Polleres2;3 1 Department of Computer Science, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile Email: {aemallea,marenas}@ing.puc.cl 2 Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland Email: {aidan.hogan,axel.polleres}@deri.org 3 Siemens AG Österreich, Siemensstrasse 90, 1210 Vienna, Austria Abstract. Blank nodes are defined in RDF as ‘existential variables’ in the same way that has been used before in mathematical logic. However, evidence suggests that actual usage of RDF does not follow this definition. In this paper we thor- oughly cover the issue of blank nodes, from incomplete information in database theory, over different treatments of blank nodes across the W3C stack of RDF- related standards, to empirical analysis of RDF data publicly available on the Web. We then summarize alternative approaches to the problem, weighing up advantages and disadvantages, also discussing proposals for Skolemization. 1 Introduction The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a W3C standard for representing in- formation on the Web using a common data model [18]. Although adoption of RDF is growing (quite) fast [4, § 3], one of its core features—blank nodes—has been sometimes misunderstood, sometimes misinterpreted, and sometimes ignored by implementers, other standards, and the general Semantic Web community. This lack of consistency between the standard and its actual uses calls for attention. The standard semantics for blank nodes interprets them as existential variables, de- noting the existence of some unnamed resource. These semantics make even simple entailment checking intractable. RDF and RDFS entailment are based on simple entail- ment, and are also intractable due to blank nodes [14].
    [Show full text]
  • Information Technology - Object Management Group XML Metadata Interchange (XMI)
    ISO/IEC 19509:2014(E) Date: April 2014 Information technology - Object Management Group XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) formal/2014-04-06 This version has been formally published by ISO as the 2014 edition standard: ISO/IEC 19509. ISO/IEC 19509:2014(E) Table of Contents 1 Scope ................................................................................................. 1 2 Conformance ...................................................................................... 1 2.1 General ....................................................................................................1 2.2 Required Compliance ...............................................................................1 2.2.1 XMI Schema Compliance ................................................................................. 1 2.2.2 XMI Document Compliance .............................................................................. 1 2.2.3 Software Compliance ....................................................................................... 2 2.3 Optional Compliance Points .....................................................................2 2.3.1 XMI Extension and Differences Compliance .................................................... 2 3 Normative References ........................................................................ 2 4 Terms and Definitions ......................................................................... 3 5 Symbols .............................................................................................. 3 6 Additional
    [Show full text]
  • RDF—The Basis of the Semantic Web 3
    CHAPTER RDF—The basis of the Semantic Web 3 CHAPTER OUTLINE Distributing Data across the Web ........................................................................................................... 28 Merging Data from Multiple Sources ...................................................................................................... 32 Namespaces, URIs, and Identity............................................................................................................. 33 Expressing URIs in print..........................................................................................................35 Standard namespaces .............................................................................................................37 Identifiers in the RDF Namespace........................................................................................................... 38 Higher-order Relationships .................................................................................................................... 42 Alternatives for Serialization ................................................................................................................. 44 N-Triples................................................................................................................................44 Turtle.....................................................................................................................................45 RDF/XML..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • XHTML+Rdfa 1.1 - Third Edition Table of Contents
    XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition Table of Contents XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition Support for RDFa via XHTML Modularization W3C Recommendation 17 March 2015 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20150317/ Latest published version: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa/ Implementation report: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/CR-ImplementationReport Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PER-xhtml-rdfa-20141216/ Previous Recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20130822/ Editor: Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc., [email protected] Please check the errata for any errors or issues reported since publication. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XHTML+RDFa, Diff from Previous Recommendation, Postscript version, and PDF version The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2015 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang). W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract RDFa Core 1.1 [RDFA-CORE [p.61] ] defines attributes and syntax for embedding semantic markup in Host Languages. This document defines one such Host Language. This language is a superset of XHTML 1.1 [XHTML11-2e [p.61] ], integrating the attributes as defined in RDFa Core 1.1. This document is intended for authors who want to create XHTML Family documents that embed rich semantic markup. - 1 - Status of This Document XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition Status of This Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Inscribing the Blockchain with Digital Signatures of Signed RDF Graphs. a Worked Example of a Thought Experiment
    Inscribing the blockchain with digital signatures of signed RDF graphs. A worked example of a thought experiment. The thing is, ad hoc hash signatures on the blockchain carry no information linking the hash to the resource for which the hash is acting as a digital signature. The onus is on the inscriber to associate the hash with the resource via a separate communications channel, either by publishing the association directly or making use of one of the third-party inscription services that also offer a resource persistence facility – you get to describe what is signed by the hash and they store the description in a database, usually for a fee, or you can upload the resource for storage, definitely for a fee. Riccardo Cassata has a couple of technical articles that expose more of the practical details: https://blog.eternitywall.it/2016/02/16/how-to-verify-notarization/ So what's published is a hexadecimal string indistinguishable from all the others which purportedly matches the hash of Riccardo's mugshot. But which? https://tineye.com/search/ed9f8022c9af413a350ec5758cda520937feab21 What’s needed is a means of creating an inscription that is not only a signature but also a resovable reference to the resource for which it acts as a digital signature. It would be even better if it were possible to create a signature of structured information, such as that describing a social media post – especially if we could leverage off’ve the W3’s recent Activity Streams standard: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/ An example taken from the
    [Show full text]
  • NENA Technical Information Document on XML Namespaces
    NENA Technical Information Document On XML Namespaces NENA Technical Information Document on XML Namespaces NENA 02-503, Issue 1, February 23, 2007 Prepared by: Pierre Desjardins, Positron Inc. For National Emergency Number Association (NENA) DTC XML Working Group Published by NENA Printed in USA NENA Technical Information Document on XML namespaces NENA 02-503 Issue 1, February 23, 2007 NENA TECHNICAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT NOTICE The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) publishes this document as an information source for the designers and manufacturers of systems to be utilized for the purpose of processing emergency calls. It is not intended to provide complete design specifications or parameters or to assure the quality of performance for systems that process emergency calls. NENA reserves the right to revise this TID for any reason including, but not limited to: • conformity with criteria or standards promulgated by various agencies • utilization of advances in the state of the technical arts • or to reflect changes in the design of network interface or services described herein. It is possible that certain advances in technology will precede these revisions. Therefore, this TID should not be the only source of information used. NENA recommends that members contact their Telecommunications Carrier representative to ensure compatibility with the 9-1-1 network. Patents may cover the specifications, techniques, or network interface/system characteristics disclosed herein. No license expressed or implied is hereby granted. This document shall not be construed as a suggestion to any manufacturer to modify or change any of its products, nor does this document represent any commitment by NENA or any affiliate thereof to purchase any product whether or not it provides the described characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Xpath Is a Syntax for Defining Parts of an XML Document. Xpath Uses Path Expressions to Navigate in XML Documents
    XML PROGRAMMING: SUB CODE- 24662 QPCODE: -780 PART-A (Each question carries 1 marks, Answer any FIFTEEN(15) questions) 1.Mention any two part of XML tree structure. Root node Leaf node 2. Write any two use of XPath. (Any Two) XPath is a syntax for defining parts of an XML document. XPath uses path expressions to navigate in XML documents. XPath contains a library of standard functions. XPath is a major element in XSLT and in XQuery. XPath is a W3C recommendation. 3. Define WML. Wireless markup language (WML) is a markup language for wireless devices that adhere to Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) and have limited processing capability. 4.What is an absolute location path? Location path specifies the location of node in XML document. This path can be absolute or relative. If location path starts with root node or with '/' then it is an absolute path. Following are few of the example locating the elements using absolute path. 5.Write the limitation of schema language. Poor support for xml namespace Poor data typing Limited content model description It supports only the text string data type. Limited possibilities to express the cardinality for elements. 6.Mention any two declaration that can be used in DTDs. (Any Two) <!ELEMENT letter (date, address, salutation, body, closing, signature)> Element – letter Child Elements - date, address, salutation, body,closing,signature <!ELEMENT Name (#PCDATA)> #PCDATA – parsed character data - Data contains only text 1 <!ELEMENT Street (#CDATA)> #CDATA – Character Data - Data may contain text, numbers and other character. <!ELEMENT br EMPTY> EMPTY – It has no content.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Integration and Analysis of Clinical Data-1024
    Semantic integration and analysis of clinical data Hong Sun, Kristof Depraetere, Jos De Roo, Boris De Vloed, Giovanni Mels, Dirk Colaert Advanced Clinical Applications Research Group, Agfa HealthCare, Gent, Belgium {hong.sun, kristof.depraetere, jos.deroo, boris.devloed, giovanni.mels, dirk.colaert }@agfa.com Abstract. There is a growing need to semantically process and integrate clinical data from different sources for Clinical Data Management and Clinical Deci- sion Support in the healthcare IT industry. In the clinical practice domain, the semantic gap between clinical information systems and domain ontologies is quite often difficult to bridge in one step. In this paper, we report our experi- ence in using a two-step formalization approach to formalize clinical data, i.e. from database schemas to local formalisms and from local formalisms to do- main (unifying) formalisms. We use N3 rules to explicitly and formally state the mapping from local ontologies to domain ontologies. The resulting data ex- pressed in domain formalisms can be integrated and analyzed, though originat- ing from very distinct sources. Practices of applying the two-step approach in the infectious disorders and cancer domains are introduced. Keywords: Semantic interoperability, N3 rules, SPARQL, formal clinical data, data integration, data analysis, clinical information system. 1 Introduction A decade ago formal semantics, the study of logic within a linguistic framework, found a new means of expression, i.e. the World Wide Web and with it the Semantic Web [1]. The Semantic Web provides additional capabilities that enable information sharing between different resources which are semantically represented. It consists of a set of standards and technologies that include a simple data model for representing information (RDF) [2], a query language for RDF (SPARQL) [3], a schema language describing RDF vocabularies (RDFS) [4], a few syntaxes to represent RDF (RDF/XML [20], N3 [19]) and a language for describing and sharing ontologies (OWL) [5].
    [Show full text]