--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/rdf-concepts/index.html Mon Aug 29 18:32:52 2011 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,1201 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+ <head>
+ <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+ <title>RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax</title>
+ <style type="text/css">
+.figure { font-weight: bold; text-align: center; }
+ </style>
+ <script src='../ReSpec.js/js/respec.js' class='remove'></script>
+ <script class='remove'>
+ var respecConfig = {
+ // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
+ specStatus: "FPWD",
+
+ // the specification's short name, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/
+ shortName: "rdf11-concepts",
+
+ // if your specification has a subtitle that goes below the main
+ // formal title, define it here
+ // subtitle : "an excellent document",
+
+ // if you wish the publication date to be other than today, set this
+ publishDate: "2011-08-30",
+
+ // if the specification's copyright date is a range of years, specify
+ // the start date here:
+ copyrightStart: "2004",
+
+ // if there is a previously published draft, uncomment this and set its YYYY-MM-DD date
+ // and its maturity status
+// previousPublishDate: "2004-02-10",
+// previousMaturity: "REC",
+
+ // if there a publicly available Editor's Draft, this is the link
+//@@@
+ edDraftURI: "http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html",
+
+ // if this is a LCWD, uncomment and set the end of its review period
+ // lcEnd: "2009-08-05",
+
+ // if there is an earler version of this specification at the Recommendation level,
+ // set this to the shortname of that version. This is optional and not usually
+ // necessary.
+ prevRecShortname: "rdf-concepts",
+
+ // if you want to have extra CSS, append them to this list
+ // it is recommended that the respec.css stylesheet be kept
+ extraCSS: ["http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/ReSpec.js/css/respec.css"],
+
+ // editors, add as many as you like
+ // only "name" is required
+ editors: [
+ { name: "Richard Cyganiak", url: "http://richard.cyganiak.de/",
+ company: "DERI, NUI Galway", companyURL: "http://www.deri.ie/",
+ },
+// @@@ Details for David?
+ { name: "David Wood", // url: "http://example.org/",
+ company: "Talis", companyURL: "http://www.talis.com/",
+ },
+ ],
+ otherContributors: {
+ "Previous editor": [
+// @@@ Graham's affiliation has changed
+ { name: "Graham Klyne",
+ url: "http://www.ninebynine.org/",
+ company: "Nine by Nine",
+ //companyURL: "http://example.com/"
+ //mailto: "GK@NineByNine.org",
+ },
+// @@@ Jeremy's affiliation has changed
+ { name: "Jeremy J. Carroll",
+ //url: "http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/jjc/",
+ company: "Hewlett Packard Labs",
+ //companyURL: "http://example.com/"
+ //mailto: "jjc@hpl.hp.com",
+ },
+// @@@ Brian's affiliation has changed
+ { name: "Brian McBride",
+ //url: "http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/",
+ company: "Hewlett Packard Labs",
+ //companyURL: "http://example.com/"
+ //mailto: "bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com",
+ note: "RDF 2004 Series Editor",
+ },
+ ],
+ },
+
+ // authors, add as many as you like.
+ // This is optional, uncomment if you have authors as well as editors.
+ // only "name" is required. Same format as editors.
+
+ //authors: [
+ // { name: "Your Name", url: "http://example.org/",
+ // company: "Your Company", companyURL: "http://example.com/" },
+ //],
+
+ // name of the WG
+ wg: "RDF Working Group",
+
+ // URI of the public WG page
+ wgURI: "http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/",
+
+ // name (with the @w3c.org) of the public mailing to which comments are due
+ wgPublicList: "public-rdf-comments",
+
+ // URI of the patent status for this WG, for Rec-track documents
+ // !!!! IMPORTANT !!!!
+ // This is important for Rec-track documents, do not copy a patent URI from a random
+ // document unless you know what you're doing. If in doubt ask your friendly neighbourhood
+ // Team Contact.
+ wgPatentURI: "http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/46168/status",
+
+ // if this parameter is set to true, ReSpec.js will embed various RDFa attributes
+ // throughout the generated specification. The triples generated use vocabulary items
+ // from the dcterms, foaf, and bibo. The parameter defaults to false.
+ doRDFa: true,
+ };
+
+// @@@ A number of references have been patched into the local berjon.biblio and need to be added to the global biblio in CVS:
+ </script>
+ </head>
+
+ <body>
+
+<section id="abstract">
+ <p>The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a framework for
+ representing information in the Web.</p>
+ <p>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
+ key concepts, datatyping, character normalization
+ and handling of IRIs.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="sotd">
+ <p>This document is work in progress towards a revision of the
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/"><em>RDF Concepts
+ and Abstract Syntax</em></a> Recommendation,
+ and is intended to eventually replace that document.
+ It is part of a larger effort to revise the
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Introduction">RDF specifications as published in 2004</a>.
+ The most significant changes from the 2004 edition are:
+ modified <a href="#section-Graph-Literal">string literals</a>,
+ a <a href="#section-skolemization">section on skolemization
+ of blank nodes</a>, and many updated
+ <a href="#references">references</a> to other specifications
+ (including a change in terminology from
+ “URI references” to “IRIs”). A fuller list of changes that
+ have been made to date is provided in <a href="#changes">Appendix A</a>.
+ Various areas of work to be tackled in upcoming
+ working drafts are highlighted throughout the document, but
+ should not yet be understood as an exhaustive list.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Introduction">
+ <h2>Introduction</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">This document reflects current progress of the RDF Working
+ Group towards updating the
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/">2004
+ version of <em>RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax</em></a>. The
+ editors expect to work on a number of issues, some of which are
+ listed in boxes like this throughout the document.</p>
+
+ <p>The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a framework for
+ representing information in the Web.</p>
+
+ <p>This document defines an abstract syntax (a data model)
+ on which RDF is based,
+ and which serves to link concrete syntaxes to its formal
+ semantics. It also includes discussion of
+ key concepts, datatyping, character normalization
+ and handling of IRIs.</p>
+
+ <p>Normative documentation of RDF falls into the following
+ areas:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>Serialization syntaxes (Turtle [[TURTLE-TR]], RDFa [[RDFA-PRIMER]], RDF/XML [[RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR]], N-Triples [[N-TRIPLES]]),</li>
+
+ <li>the RDF Vocabulary Description Language ([[RDF-SCHEMA]]),</li>
+
+ <li>a formal model-theoretic semantics [[!RDF-MT]], and</li>
+
+ <li>this document.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p>The framework is designed so that vocabularies can be layered.
+ The terms defined in [[RDF-SCHEMA]] are the first such vocabulary.
+ Several other vocabularies for RDF are
+ mentioned in the Primer [[RDF-PRIMER]].</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="conformance"></section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Concepts" class="informative">
+ <h2>RDF Concepts</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section is quite redundant with later
+ normative sections and the RDF Primer. Its removal has been
+ proposed. This is
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/68">ISSUE-68</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>RDF uses the following key concepts:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>Graph data model</li>
+
+ <li>IRI-based vocabulary</li>
+
+ <li>Datatypes</li>
+
+ <li>Literals</li>
+
+ <li>Entailment</li>
+ </ul>
+
+
+<section id="section-data-model">
+ <h3>Graph Data Model</h3>
+
+ <p>The underlying structure of any expression in RDF is a
+ collection of triples, each consisting of a subject, a
+ predicate and an object. A set of such triples is called an RDF
+ graph (defined more formally in
+<a href="#section-Graph-syntax">section 6</a>). This can be
+ illustrated by a node and directed-arc diagram, in which each
+ triple is represented as a node-arc-node link (hence the term
+ “graph”).</p>
+
+ <div class="figure">
+ <img src="Graph-ex.gif" alt="image of the RDF triple comprising (subject, predicate, object)" />
+ </div>
+
+ <p>Each triple represents a statement of a relationship between
+ the things denoted by the nodes that it links. Each triple has
+ three parts:</p>
+ <ol>
+ <li>a <a>subject</a>,</li>
+ <li>an <a>object</a>, and</li>
+ <li>a <a>predicate</a> (also called a
+ <a>property</a>) that denotes a
+ relationship.</li>
+ </ol>
+ <p>The direction of the arc is significant: it always points
+ toward the object.</p>
+ <p>The <a title="node">nodes</a> of an RDF graph
+ are its subjects and objects.</p>
+ <p>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 (logical AND) of the statements
+ corresponding to all the triples it contains. A formal account
+ of the meaning of RDF graphs is given in [[!RDF-MT]].</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-IRI-Vocabulary">
+ <h3>IRI-based Vocabulary and Node Identification</h3>
+
+ <p>A <a>node</a> may be an <a>IRI</a>, a <a>literal</a>,
+ or <a title="blank node">blank</a> (having no separate form of identification).
+ Properties are <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>.</p>
+ <p>An <a>IRI</a> or <a>literal</a> used as a node identifies what
+ that node represents. An IRI used as a predicate
+ identifies a relationship between the things represented by the nodes it connects. A
+ predicate IRI may also be a node in the graph.</p>
+ <p>A <a>blank node</a> is a node that is
+ not an IRI 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.</p>
+ <p>A convention used by some linear representations of an RDF
+ graph to allow several statements to use the same
+ blank node is to use a <dfn>blank node
+ identifier</dfn>, which is a local identifier that can be
+ distinguished from all IRIs 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. Note that such blank node identifiers are not part
+ of the RDF abstract syntax, and the representation of triples
+ containing blank nodes is entirely dependent on the particular
+ concrete syntax used.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Datatypes-intro">
+ <h3>Datatypes</h3>
+
+ <p>Datatypes are used by RDF in the representation of values such
+ as integers, floating point numbers and dates.</p>
+
+ <p>
+A datatype consists of a lexical space, a value space and a lexical-to-value
+mapping, see <a href="#section-Datatypes">section 5</a>.
+</p>
+
+ <p>For example, the lexical-to-value mapping for the XML Schema datatype
+ <var>xsd:boolean</var>, where each member of the value space
+ (represented here as 'T' and 'F') has two lexical representations,
+ is as follows:</p>
+
+ <table border="1" cellpadding="5" summary=
+ "A table detailing the xsd:boolean datatype.">
+ <tr>
+ <th align="left">Value Space</th>
+
+ <td>{T, F}</td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr>
+ <th align="left">Lexical Space</th>
+
+ <td>{"0", "1", "true", "false"}</td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr>
+ <th align="left">Lexical-to-Value Mapping</th>
+
+ <td>{<"true", T>, <"1", T>, <"0", F>,
+ <"false", F>}</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+
+ <p>RDF predefines just one datatype <code><a>rdf:XMLLiteral</a></code>, used for
+ embedding XML in RDF (see <a href="#section-XMLLiteral">section
+ 5.1</a>).</p>
+
+ <p>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 <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>.
+ The predefined XML Schema
+ datatypes [[!XMLSCHEMA-2]] are expected
+ to be widely used for this purpose.</p>
+
+
+ <p>RDF provides no mechanism for defining new datatypes. XML Schema
+ Datatypes [[!XMLSCHEMA-2]] provides an
+ extensibility framework suitable for defining new datatypes for use
+ in RDF.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Literals">
+ <h3>Literals</h3>
+
+ <p><a title="literal">Literals</a> 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 an <a>IRI</a>, but it is often more
+ convenient or intuitive to use literals.</p>
+
+ <p>A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the
+ subject or the predicate.</p>
+
+ <p>Literals may be <cite>typed</cite> or <cite>language-tagged</cite>:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>A <a>typed literal</a> is a string combined with a
+ <a>datatype IRI</a>. It denotes the
+ member of the identified datatype's value space obtained by
+ applying the lexical-to-value mapping to the literal string.</li>
+
+ <li>A <a>language-tagged literal</a> is a string combined
+ with a language tag. This may be used for
+ plain text in a natural language. Language-tagged literals
+ are self-denoting.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p>Continuing the example from <a href="#section-Datatypes-intro">section
+ 3.3</a>, the typed literals that can be defined using the XML
+ Schema datatype <var>xsd:boolean</var> are:</p>
+
+ <table border="1" cellpadding="5" summary=
+ "This table lists the literals of type xsd:boolean.">
+ <tr>
+ <th>Typed Literal</th>
+
+ <th>Lexical-to-Value Mapping</th>
+
+ <th>Value</th>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr>
+ <td align="center"><xsd:boolean, "true"></td>
+
+ <td align="center"><"true", T></td>
+
+ <td align="center">T</td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr>
+ <td align="center"><xsd:boolean, "1"></td>
+
+ <td align="center"><"1", T></td>
+
+ <td align="center">T</td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr>
+ <td align="center"><xsd:boolean, "false"></td>
+
+ <td align="center"><"false", F></td>
+
+ <td align="center">F</td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr>
+ <td align="center"><xsd:boolean, "0"></td>
+
+ <td align="center"><"0", F></td>
+
+ <td align="center">F</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+
+ <p>For text that may contain
+ markup, use typed literals
+with type <a href="#section-XMLLiteral">rdf:XMLLiteral</a>.
+If language annotation is required,
+it must be explicitly included as markup, usually by means of an
+<code>xml:lang</code> attribute.
+XHTML [[XHTML10]] may be included within RDF
+in this way. Sometimes, in this latter case,
+ an additional <code>span</code> or <code>div</code>
+ element is needed to carry an
+<code>xml:lang</code> or <code>lang</code> attribute.
+ </p>
+
+<p class="issue">Update the XHTML 1.0 reference to something more recent?</p>
+
+<p>
+The string in both plain and typed literals is recommended to
+be in Unicode Normal Form C [[!NFC]]. This is motivated
+by [[CHARMOD]] particularly
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-charmod-20030822/#sec-Normalization">section 4
+Early Uniform Normalization</a>.
+</p>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Entailment">
+ <h3>Entailment</h3>
+
+ <p>The ideas on meaning and inference in RDF are underpinned by the
+ formal concept of <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#entail">
+<cite>entailment</cite></a>, as
+ discussed in the RDF
+ semantics document [[!RDF-MT]].
+In brief, an RDF expression A is said to
+<dfn title="entailment">entail</dfn> 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 .
+</p>
+</section>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-URIspaces">
+ <h2>RDF Vocabulary IRI and Namespace</h2>
+
+ <p>RDF uses <a title="IRI">IRIs</a> to identify resources
+ and properties. Certain
+ IRIs with the following leading substring are defined by the
+ RDF specifications to denote specific concepts:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><code>http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#</code>
+ (conventionally associated with namespace prefix <code>rdf:</code>)</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p>Vocabulary terms in the <code>rdf:</code>
+ namespace are listed and described in detail in the
+ RDF Schema specification [[!RDF-SCHEMA]].</p>
+
+ <p class="note">The RDF namespace is also used as an
+ XML namespace [[XML-NAMES]] to define a number of additional
+ element and attribute names for purely syntactic purposes within
+ the RDF/XML syntax ([[RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR]],
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Namespace">section 5.1</a>).
+ These terms (e.g., <code>rdf:about</code> and <code>rdf:ID</code>)
+ do not denote concepts.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Datatypes">
+ <h2>Datatypes</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section perhaps should discuss
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp">the XSD datatype map</a>
+ and <code><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/">rdf:PlainLiteral</a></code>.
+ This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/70">ISSUE-70</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+The datatype abstraction used in RDF is compatible with
+the abstraction used in
+XML Schema Part 2:
+ Datatypes [[!XMLSCHEMA-2]].</p>
+<p>
+A datatype consists of a lexical space, a value space and a lexical-to-value
+mapping.
+</p>
+<p>The <dfn>lexical space</dfn> of a datatype is a set of Unicode [[!UNICODE]] strings.</p>
+<p>
+The <dfn>lexical-to-value mapping</dfn> of a datatype is a set of pairs whose
+first element belongs to
+the <a>lexical space</a> of the datatype,
+and the second element belongs to the
+ <dfn>value space</dfn> of the datatype:
+</p>
+<ul>
+<li>
+Each member of the lexical space is paired with (maps to) exactly one member
+of the value space.
+</li>
+<li>
+Each member of the value space may be paired with any number (including
+zero) of members of the lexical space (lexical representations for that
+value).
+</li>
+</ul>
+<p>
+A datatype is identified by one or more IRIs.
+</p>
+<p>
+RDF may be used with any datatype definition that conforms to this
+abstraction, even if not defined in terms of XML Schema.
+</p>
+ <p>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.
+ [[!RDF-MT]] contains a
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#dtype_interp">more detailed discussion</a>
+ of specific XML Schema built-in datatypes. </p>
+
+<div class="note">
+<p>When the datatype is defined using XML Schema:
+</p>
+<ul>
+<li>
+All values correspond to some lexical form, either using
+the lexical-to-value mapping of the datatype or if it is a union
+datatype with a lexical mapping associated with one of the member
+datatypes.
+</li>
+<li>
+XML Schema facets remain part of the datatype and are used by the XML
+Schema mechanisms that control the lexical space and the value space;
+however, RDF does not define a standard mechanism to access these facets.</li>
+
+<li>In [[XMLSCHEMA-1]],
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/#section-White-Space-Normalization-during-Validation">
+white space normalization</a> occurs
+during
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/#key-vn">validation</a>
+according to the value of the
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#rf-whiteSpace">whiteSpace
+facet</a>. The lexical-to-value mapping used in RDF datatyping
+occurs after this, so that the whiteSpace facet has no
+effect in RDF datatyping.
+</li>
+</ul>
+
+</div>
+
+
+<section id="section-XMLLiteral">
+ <h3>XML Content within an RDF Graph</h3>
+
+ <p class="issue">The canonicalization rules required for XML literals
+ are quite complicated. Increasingly, RDF is produced and consumed in
+ environments where no XML parser and canonicalization engine is
+ available. A possible change to relax the requirements for the
+ lexical space, while retaining the value space, is under discussion.
+ This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/13">ISSUE-13</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>RDF provides for XML content as a possible literal value.
+ Such content is indicated in an RDF graph using a typed literal
+ whose datatype is a special built-in datatype
+ <dfn>rdf:XMLLiteral</dfn>,
+ defined as follows.</p>
+
+
+ <dl>
+ <dt><a name="XMLLiteral-uri" id="XMLLiteral-uri">An IRI for
+identifying this datatype</a></dt>
+
+ <dd>is
+ <code>http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral</code>.</dd>
+
+
+
+
+ <dt><a name="XMLLiteral-lexical-space" id="XMLLiteral-lexical-space">The lexical space</a></dt>
+
+<dd>is the set of all
+strings:
+<ul>
+<li>which are well-balanced, self-contained
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-content">
+XML content</a>
+[[!XML10]];
+</li>
+<li>for which encoding as UTF-8
+[[!UTF-8]] yields
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/#def-exclusive-canonical-XML">
+exclusive
+Canonical XML </a> (with comments, with empty
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/#def-InclusiveNamespaces-PrefixList">
+InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList
+</a>) [[!XML-EXC-C14N]];
+</li>
+<li>for which embedding between an arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag
+yields a document conforming to <a href=
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/">XML
+ Namespaces</a> [[!XML-NAMES]]</li>
+</ul>
+</dd>
+
+
+ <dt><a name="XMLLiteral-value-space" id="XMLLiteral-value-space">The value space</a></dt>
+
+ <dd>is a set of entities, called XML values, which is:
+<ul>
+<li>disjoint from the lexical space;</li>
+<li>disjoint from the value space of any other datatype that is not explicitly defined as a sub- or supertype of this datatype;</li>
+<li>disjoint from the set of Unicode character strings [[!UNICODE]];</li>
+<li>and in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.</li>
+</ul>
+</dd>
+
+ <dt><a name="XMLLiteral-mapping" id="XMLLiteral-mapping">The lexical-to-value mapping</a></dt>
+
+ <dd>
+is a one-one mapping from the lexical space onto the value space,
+ i.e. it is both injective and surjective.
+</dd>
+
+
+
+ </dl>
+
+ <p class="note">Not all values of this datatype are compliant
+ with XML 1.1 [[XML11]]. If compliance
+ with XML 1.1 is desired, then only those values that are
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml11-20021015/#sec2.13">fully
+ normalized</a> according to XML 1.1 should be used.</p>
+
+ <p class="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.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">RDF applications may use additional equivalence relations, such as
+that which relates an
+<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#string"><code>xsd:string</code></a>
+
+with an <code>rdf:XMLLiteral</code> corresponding to
+a single text node of the same string.</p>
+
+</section>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Graph-syntax">
+ <h2>Abstract Syntax</h2>
+
+ <p>This section defines the RDF abstract syntax. The RDF abstract
+ syntax is a set of triples, called the RDF graph.</p>
+
+ <p>This section also defines equivalence between RDF graphs. A
+ definition of equivalence is needed to support the RDF Test Cases
+ [[RDF-TESTCASES]] specification.</p>
+
+<p class="note">This <em>abstract</em> 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 <tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt> 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.
+</p>
+
+
+<section id="section-triples">
+ <h3>RDF Triples</h3>
+
+ <p>An <dfn>RDF triple</dfn> contains three components:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>the <dfn>subject</dfn>, which is an
+ <a>IRI</a> or a <a>blank node</a></li>
+
+ <li>the <dfn>predicate</dfn>, which is an <a>IRI</a></li>
+
+ <li>the <dfn>object</dfn>, which is an <a>IRI</a>,
+ a <a>literal</a> or a <a>blank node</a></li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p>An RDF triple is conventionally written in the order subject,
+ predicate, object.</p>
+
+ <p>The predicate is also known as the <dfn>property</dfn> of the triple.</p>
+
+ <p><a title="IRI">IRIs</a>, <a title="blank node">blank nodes</a> and
+ <a title="literal">literals</a> are collectively known as
+ <dfn title="RDF term">RDF terms</dfn>.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-rdf-graph">
+ <h3>RDF Graph</h3>
+
+ <p>An <dfn>RDF graph</dfn> is a set of RDF triples.</p>
+
+ <p>The set of <dfn title="node">nodes</dfn> of an RDF graph is the set of subjects and objects of
+ triples in the graph.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-graph-equality">
+ <h3>Graph Equivalence</h3>
+
+ <p>Two <a title="RDF graph">RDF graphs</a> <var>G</var> and <var>G'</var> are equivalent if there
+ is a bijection <var>M</var> between the sets of nodes of the two graphs,
+ such that:</p>
+
+ <ol>
+ <li><var>M</var> maps blank nodes to blank nodes.</li>
+ <li><var>M(lit)=lit</var> for all <a title="literal">RDF literals</a> <var>lit</var> which
+ are nodes of <var>G</var>.</li>
+
+ <li><var>M(uri)=uri</var> for all <a title="IRI">IRIs</a> <var>uri</var>
+ which are nodes of <var>G</var>.</li>
+
+ <li>The triple <var>( s, p, o )</var> is in <var>G</var> if and
+ only if the triple <var>( M(s), p, M(o) )</var> is in
+ <var>G'</var></li>
+ </ol>
+ <p>With this definition, <var>M</var> shows how each blank node
+ in <var>G</var> can be replaced with
+ a new blank node to give <var>G'</var>.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-IRIs">
+ <h3>IRIs</h3>
+
+ <p>An <dfn title="IRI"><acronym title="Internationalized Resource Identifier">IRI</acronym></dfn>
+ (Internationalized Resource Identifier) within an RDF graph
+ is a Unicode string [[!UNICODE]] that conforms to the syntax
+ defined in RFC 3987 [[!IRI]]. IRIs are a generalization of
+ <dfn title="URI"><acronym title="Uniform Resource Identifier">URI</acronym>s</dfn>
+ [[URI]]. Every absolute URI and URL is an IRI.</p>
+
+ <p>IRIs in the RDF abstract syntax MUST be absolute, and MAY
+ contain a fragment identifier.</p>
+
+ <p>Two IRIs are equal if and only if they are equivalent
+ under Simple String Comparison according to
+ <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-5.1">section 5.1</a>
+ of [[!IRI]]. Further normalization MUST NOT be performed when
+ comparing IRIs for equality.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">When IRIs are used in operations that are only
+ defined for URIs, they must first be converted according to
+ the mapping defined in
+ <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-3.1">section 3.1</a>
+ of [[!IRI]]. A notable example is retrieval over the HTTP
+ protocol. The mapping involves UTF-8 encoding of non-ASCII
+ characters, %-encoding of octets not allowed in URIs, and
+ Punycode-encoding of domain names.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">Some concrete syntaxes permit relative IRIs
+ as a shorthand for absolute IRIs, and define how to resolve
+ the relative IRIs against a base IRI.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">Previous versions of RDF used the term
+ “<dfn>RDF URI Reference</dfn>” instead of “IRI” and allowed
+ additional characters:
+ “<code><</code>”, “<code>></code>”,
+ “<code>{</code>”, “<code>}</code>”,
+ “<code>|</code>”, “<code>\</code>”,
+ “<code>^</code>”, “<code>`</code>”,
+ ‘<code>“</code>’ (double quote), and “<code> </code>” (space).
+ In IRIs, these characters must be percent-encoded as
+ described in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.1">section 2.1</a>
+ of [[URI]].</p>
+
+ <div class="note">
+ <p>Interoperability problems can be avoided by minting
+ only IRIs that are normalized according to
+ <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-5">Section 5</a>
+ of [[!IRI]]. Non-normalized forms that should be avoided
+ include:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>Uppercase characters in scheme names and domain names</li>
+ <li>Percent-encoding of characters where it is not
+ required by IRI syntax</li>
+ <li>Explicitly stated HTTP default port
+ (<code>http://example.com:80/</code>);
+ <code>http://example.com/</code> is preferrable</li>
+ <li>Completely empty path in HTTP IRIs
+ (<code>http://example.com</code>);
+ <code>http://example.com/</code> is preferrable</li>
+ <li>“<code>/./</code>” or “<code>/../</code>” in the path
+ component of an IRI</li>
+ <li>Lowercase hexadecimal letters within percent-encoding
+ triplets (“<code>%3F</code>” is preferable over
+ “<code>%3f</code>”)</li>
+ <li>Punycode-encoding of Internationalized Domain Names
+ in IRIs</li>
+ <li>IRIs that are not in Unicode Normalization
+ Form C [[!NFC]]</li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Graph-Literal">
+ <h3>RDF Literals</h3>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section is a major departure from RDF 2004
+ as <a title="simple literal">simple literals</a> are now treated
+ as syntactic sugar for <code>xsd:string</code>
+ <a title="typed literal">typed literals</a>. Further changes
+ to RDF's literal design are under consideration:
+ <a title="language-tagged literal">Language-tagged literals</a>
+ may receive a datatype, and
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/"><code>rdf:PlainLiteral</code>s</a> [[RDF-PLAINLITERAL]]
+ may be folded into the design somehow. This is
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/71">ISSUE-71</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>A <dfn>literal</dfn> in an <a>RDF graph</a> is either a
+ <a>typed literal</a> or a <a>language-tagged literal</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>All literals have a <dfn>lexical form</dfn> being a Unicode
+ [[!UNICODE]] string, which SHOULD be in Normal Form C [[!NFC]].</p>
+
+ <p><dfn title="language-tagged literal">Language-tagged literals</dfn> have
+ a <a>lexical form</a> and a non-empty <dfn>language tag</dfn> as
+ defined by [[!BCP47]]. The language tag MUST be well-formed according to
+ <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-2.2.9">section 2.2.9</a>
+ of [[!BCP47]], and MUST be normalized to lowercase.</p>
+
+ <p><dfn title="typed literal">Typed literals</dfn> have a <a>lexical form</a>
+ and a <dfn>datatype IRI</dfn> being an <a>IRI</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>Concrete syntaxes MAY support <dfn title="simple literal">simple
+ literals</dfn>, consisting of only a <a>lexical form</a>
+ without any language tag or datatype IRI. Simple literals only
+ exist in concrete syntaxes, and are treated as
+ syntactic sugar for abstract syntax
+ <a title="plain literal">typed literals</a> with the datatype IRI
+ <code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string</code>.
+ Simple literals and <a>language-tagged literals</a> are
+ collectively known as <dfn title="plain literal">plain literals</dfn>.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">Earlier versions of RDF allowed
+ <a title="simple literal">simple literals</a> in the abstract syntax.</p>
+
+ <p class="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 [[XML11]].</p>
+
+ <p class="note">Earlier versions of RDF permitted tags that
+ adhered to the generic tag/subtag syntax of language tags,
+ but were not well-formed according to [[!BCP47]]. Such
+ language tags do not conform to RDF 1.1.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">When using the language tag, care must be
+ taken not to confuse language with locale. The language
+ tag relates only to human language text. Presentational
+ issues should
+ be addressed in end-user applications.</p>
+
+ <p class="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.</p>
+
+
+<section id="section-Literal-Equality">
+ <h4>Literal Equality</h4>
+
+ <p>Two literals are equal if and only if all of the following
+ hold:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>The strings of the two lexical forms compare equal, character
+ by character.</li>
+
+ <li>Either both or neither have language tags.</li>
+
+ <li>The language tags, if any, compare
+ equal.</li>
+
+ <li>Either both or neither have datatype IRIs.</li>
+
+ <li>The two datatype IRIs, if any, compare equal, character by
+ character.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p class="note">RDF Literals are distinct and distinguishable
+ from <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>; e.g. <code>http://example.org/</code> as an RDF
+ Literal (untyped, without a language tag) is not equal to
+ <code>http://example.org/</code> as an IRI.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Literal-Value">
+ <h4>The Value Corresponding to a Typed Literal</h4>
+
+ <p>The datatype IRI refers to a <a href=
+ "#section-Datatypes">datatype</a>. For XML Schema <a href=
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes">
+ built-in</a> datatypes, IRIs such as
+ <code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int</code> are used. The IRI
+ of the datatype <a href="#section-XMLLiteral"><tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt></a> may be used.
+ There may be other, implementation dependent, mechanisms by which
+ IRIs refer to datatypes.</p>
+
+ <p>The <em>value</em> associated with a typed literal is found by
+ applying the lexical-to-value mapping associated with the datatype IRI to
+ the lexical form.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ If the lexical form is not in
+ the lexical space of the datatype associated with the datatype IRI,
+then no literal value can be associated with the typed literal.
+Such a case, while in error, is not <em>syntactically</em> ill-formed.</p>
+<!--
+ <p>A typed literal for which the datatype does not map the lexical
+ form to a value is not syntactically ill-formed.</p>
+-->
+
+
+ <p class="note">
+In application contexts, comparing the values of typed literals (see
+<a href="#section-Literal-Value">
+section
+6.5.2</a>)
+is usually more helpful than comparing their syntactic forms (see
+<a href="#section-Literal-Equality">
+section
+6.5.1</a>).
+Similarly, for comparing RDF Graphs,
+semantic notions of entailment (see
+[[!RDF-MT]]) are usually
+more helpful than syntactic equality (see
+<a href="#section-graph-equality">
+section
+6.3</a>).</p>
+
+</section>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-blank-nodes">
+ <h3>Blank Nodes</h3>
+
+<p>
+The <dfn title="blank node">blank nodes</dfn> in an RDF graph
+are drawn from an infinite set.
+This set of blank nodes, the set of all <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>
+and the set of all <a title="literal">literals</a> are pairwise disjoint.
+</p>
+<p>
+Otherwise, this set of blank nodes is arbitrary.
+</p>
+<p>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.</p>
+
+
+<section id="section-skolemization">
+ <h4>Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</h4>
+
+ <p>Blank nodes do not have identifiers in the RDF abstract syntax. The
+ <a title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</a> introduced
+ by some concrete syntaxes have only
+ local scope and are purely an artifact of the serialization.</p>
+
+ <p>In situations where stronger identification is needed, systems MAY
+ systematically transform some or all of the blank nodes in an RDF graph
+ into IRIs [[!IRI]]. Systems wishing to do this SHOULD mint a new, globally
+ unique IRI (a <dfn>Skolem IRI</dfn>) for each blank node so transformed.</p>
+
+ <p>This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF graph,
+ provided that the Skolem IRIs do not occur anywhere else.</p>
+
+ <p>Systems may wish to mint Skolem IRIs in such a way that they can
+ recognize the IRIs as having been introduced solely to replace a blank
+ node, and map back to the source blank node where possible.</p>
+
+ <p>Systems that want Skolem IRIs to be recognizable outside of the system
+ boundaries SHOULD use a well-known IRI [[WELL-KNOWN]] with the registered
+ name <code>genid</code>. This is an IRI that uses the HTTP or HTTPS scheme,
+ or another scheme that has been specified to use well-known IRIs; and whose
+ path component starts with <code>/.well-known/genid/</code>.
+
+ <p>For example, the authority responsible for the domain
+ <code>example.com</code> could mint the following recognizable Skolem IRI:</p>
+
+ <pre>http://example.com/.well-known/genid/d26a2d0e98334696f4ad70a677abc1f6</pre>
+
+ <p class="issue">IETF registration of the <code>genid</code> name is
+ currently in progress.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">RFC 5785 [[WELL-KNOWN]] only specifies well-known URIs,
+ not IRIs. For the purpose of this document, a well-known IRI is any
+ IRI that results in a well-known URI after IRI-to-URI mapping [[!IRI]].</p>
+</section>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-multigraph">
+ <h2>Abstract Syntax for Working with Multiple Graphs</h2>
+
+ <div class="issue">
+ <p>The Working Group will standardize a model and semantics for
+ multiple graphs and graphs stores. The
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter">charter</a> notes:</p>
+
+ <blockquote>The RDF Community has used the
+ term “named graphs” for a number of years in various settings,
+ but this term is ambiguous, and often refers to what could rather
+ be referred as quoted graphs, graph literals, IRIs for graphs,
+ knowledge bases, graph stores, etc. The term “Support for Multiple
+ Graphs and Graph Stores” is used as a neutral term in this charter;
+ this term is not and should not be considered as definitive.
+ The Working Group will have to define the right term(s).</blockquote>
+
+ <p>Progress on the design for this feature is tracked under multiple
+ issues:</p>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5">ISSUE-5: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/14">ISSUE-14: What is a named graph and what should we call it?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15">ISSUE-15: What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17">ISSUE-17: How are RDF datasets to be merged?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22">ISSUE-22: Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28">ISSUE-28: Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29">ISSUE-29: Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30">ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32">ISSUE-32: Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33">ISSUE-33: Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples?</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ </div>
+</section>
+
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-fragID" class="informative">
+ <h2>Fragment Identifiers</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section does not address the case where RDF is
+ embedded in other document formats, such as in RDFa or when an RDF/XML
+ fragment is embedded in SVG. It has been suggested that this may be
+ a general issue for the TAG about the treatment of
+ fragment identifiers when one language is embedded in another. This is
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37">ISSUE-37</a>.</p>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section treats the RDF/XML media type as
+ canonical for establishing the referent of IRIs that include
+ fragment identifier. Today we have many different media types
+ that can carry RDF graphs, and HTTP content negotiation is more
+ common. Also, the problem addressed in the section
+ (context-dependence of fragment identifiers) has to some extent
+ gone away when RFC 2396 was replaced by RFC 3986. The latter
+ states that the same fragment should be used for the same thing
+ in resources that have multiple representations
+ (Section 3.5 [[URI]]). This is
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/69">ISSUE-69</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>RDF uses <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>,
+ which may include fragment identifiers, as
+ context free identifiers for resources. RFC 2396 states
+ that the meaning of a fragment
+ identifier depends on the MIME content-type of a document, i.e.
+ is context dependent.</p>
+ <p>These apparently conflicting views are reconciled by
+ considering that an <a>IRI</a> in an RDF graph is treated
+ with respect to the MIME type <code>application/rdf+xml</code>
+ [[RDF-MIME-TYPE]]. Given an IRI that includes a fragment identifier,
+ the fragment identifer identifies the same thing
+ that it does in an <code>application/rdf+xml</code> representation of the
+ resource identified by the IRI excluding the fragment identifier. Thus:</p>
+ <ul>
+ <li>we assume that the IRI excluding fragment
+ identifier identifies a resource, which is presumed to have
+ an RDF representation. So when <code>eg:someurl#frag</code> is used in an RDF
+ document, <code>eg:someurl</code> is taken to
+ designate some RDF document (even when no such document can
+ be retrieved).</li>
+ <li><code>eg:someurl#frag</code> means the thing
+ that is indicated, according to the rules of the
+ <code>application/rdf+xml</code> MIME content-type as
+ a “fragment” or “view” of the RDF document at
+ <code>eg:someurl</code>. If the document does not
+ exist, or cannot be retrieved, or is available only in
+ formats other than <code>application/rdf+xml</code>, then exactly what
+ that view may be is somewhat undetermined, but that does not
+ prevent use of RDF to say things about it.</li>
+ <li>the RDF 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 a more general idea, like some particular
+ car or a mythical Unicorn.</li>
+ <li>in this way, an <code>application/rdf+xml</code> document acts as an
+ intermediary between some Web retrievable documents (itself,
+ at least, also any other Web retrievable IRIs that it may
+ use, possibly including schema IRIs and references to other
+ RDF documents), and some set of possibly abstract or non-Web
+ entities that the RDF may describe.</li>
+ </ul>
+ <p>This provides a handling of IRIs 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 IRIs
+ in an RDF graph.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="section-Acknowledgments" class="informative">
+ <h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
+
+ <p class="issue">This section does not yet list those who made
+ contributions to the RDF 1.1 version, nor does it list the
+ current RDF WG members.</p>
+
+ <p>The RDF 2004 editors acknowledge valuable contributions from
+ 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.</p>
+
+ <p>This specification contains a significant contribution from the
+ designers of the RDF typed literal mechanism, Pat
+ Hayes, Sergey Melnik and Patrick Stickler. The document 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.</p>
+
+ <p>This specification is a product of extended deliberations by the
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Acknowledgments">members
+ of the RDFcore Working Group and the RDF and RDF Schema Working Group</a>.</p>
+</section>
+
+
+<section class="appendix informative" id="changes">
+ <h2>Changes from RDF 2004</h2>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>2011-08-13: Updated Turtle reference to Turtle FPWD</li>
+ <li>2011-07-21: Condensed the 2004 acknowledgements</li>
+ <li>2011-07-21: Updated the two sections on literals to reflect the <a href="">ISSUE-12 resolution</a> that simple literals are no longer part of the abstract syntax. Formally introduced the terms “language-tagged literal”, “simple literal”.</li>
+ <li>2011-07-21: Updated the introduction, and removed many mentions of RDF/XML. Changed the normative reference for the terms in the RDF namespace from the RDF/XML spec to the RDF Schema spec. Removed any mention of the 1999 version of RDF.</li>
+ <li>2011-07-21: Replaced RFC 2279 reference (UTF-8) with RFC 3629</li>
+ <li>2011-07-20: Removed informative sections “Motivations and Goals” (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Overview">RDF 2004 version</a>) and “RDF Expression of Simple Facts” (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-SimpleFacts">RDF 2004 version</a>)</li>
+ <li>2011-06-01: Replaced the URI References section with <a href="#section-IRIs">new section on IRIs</a>, and changed “RDF URI Reference” to “IRI” throughout the document.</li>
+ <li>2011-06-01: Changed language tag definition to require well-formedness according to BCP47; added a note that this invalidates some RDF</li>
+ <li>2011-05-25: Added boxes for known WG issues throught the document</li>
+ <li>2011-05-25: Deleted “Structure of this Document” section, it added no value beyond the TOC</li>
+ <li>2011-05-25: Implemented resolution of <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40">ISSUE-40: Skolemization advice in the RDF dcocument</a> by adding a section on <a href="#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></li>
+ <li>2011-05-25: rdf:XMLLiteral is disjoint from any datatype not explicitly related to it, per erratum <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#concept-xmlliteral">[concept-xmlliteral]</a></li>
+ <li>2011-05-25: Added Conformance section with RFC2119 reference</li>
+ <li>2011-05-25: Updated all W3C references to latest editions, and Unicode from v3 to v4</li>
+ <li>2011-05-24: Converted to ReSpec, changed metadata to reflect RDF 1.1</li>
+ </ul>
+</section>
+
+
+<section id="references"></section>
+
+ </body>
+</html>
+