Skip to topic | Skip to bottom
Home

RDFTM
RDFTM.RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesr1.20 - 01 Nov 2005 - 19:20 - ValentinaPresuttitopic end

Start of topic | Skip to actions
This is a work-in-progress document.

Guidelines for RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a model developed by the W3C for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. Topic Maps is a standard for knowledge integration developed by the ISO. The two specifications were developed in parallel during the late 1990's within their separate organizations for what at first appeared to be very different purposes. The results, however, turned out to have a lot in common and this has led to calls for their unification.

While unification has to date not been possible (for a vari ety of technical and political reasons), a number of attempts have been made to uncover the synergies between RDF and Topic Maps and to find ways of achieving interoperability at the data level. There is now widespread recognition within the respective user communities that achieving such interoperability is a matter of some urgency. This document is the result of the work done by the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group of the W3C with the support of the ISO Topic Maps committee to address this issue. It provides a set of Guidelines for users who want to combine usage of the W3C's RDF/OWL family of specifications and the ISO's family of Topic Maps standards.

1.2 Purpose and target audience

The purpose of this document is to present a solution to the problem of RDF/Topic Maps interoperability at the data level. It consists of guidelines that describe how to author topic maps and RDF documents in order to ensure maximum interoperability, and a set of rules for performing automated translation between RDF and Topic Maps.

As the word guidelines might suggest, this document contains a possible way to perform the translation between RFD and Topic Maps and it is advised as best practice. It is the result of the analysis of different possible approaches which are in part described in [Survey].

The goal is to be able to translate data from one form to the other without unacceptable loss of information or corruption of the semantics. Furthermore, it must be possible to query the results of a translation in terms of the target model and it must be possible to share vocabularies across the two paradigms.

[RDF-Schema] and [OWL] are considered relevant to this work to the extent that the classes and properties they define are supportive of its goals.

However, the followings are explicity not goals of the current work:
  • to enable the general use of RDF Schema and OWL with Topic Maps, although this issue may be addressed later;
  • to provide the mapping between the RDF and Topic Maps models.

This document is aimed at anyone with an interest in the problem of RDF/Topic Maps interoperability and a willingness to acquire the necessary understanding of both formalisms. In particular it targets authors of Topic Maps and RDF documents; creators of tools for translating between RDF and Topic Maps; and those who seek reassurance that data can be easily reused across the two paradigms. The reader is expected to be familiar with both RDF and Topic Maps to a level that at least corresponds to the tutorial material in [Pepper 00] and [RDF-Primer]. To fully understand Chapter 5, the reader must in addition be familiar with the models described in [TMDM] and [RDF-Semantics], and the syntaxes described in [LTM] and [N3].

1.3 Structure of this document

This document defines a set of guidelines in order to address the RDf and Topic Maps interoperability issue. The approach is twofold: the translation can be either guided or unguided. The guided translation is supported by a specific vocabulary here defined.

This document starts by stating the requirements that the Guidelines are intended to fulfill. This is followed by an informative prose description of the mapping between the RDF and Topic Maps models that underpins the interoperability guidelines. The description is structured by concept, starting with the most general concepts (things, proxies, assertions, etc.) and ending up with concepts that are specific to one paradigm or the other (e.g., scope and language tags).

The chapter 3 describes the rationale for these guidelines, both for guided and unguided translation. Chapter 4 contains guidelines for authoring RDF and Topic Maps, respectively. These are expressed as succintly as possible in order that they should be easily referenced. The rationale for these guidelines is to be found in Chapter 3.

Finally, Chapter 5 provides a formal exposition of rules for performing automated translations from RDF to Topic Maps and vice versa based on the data models described in [TMDM] and [RDF-Semantics]. Once again, these rules are expressed as succintly as possible for ease of reference and the rationale for them is to be found in Chapter 3.

1.4 Glossary

2. Requirements

This document should provide Guidelines such that the following requirements are satisfied:

MUST

  1. Data originating in one paradigm must merge cleanly with data originating in the other.
  2. Vocabularies must be reusable across the two paradigms.
  3. Queries written against one model must be usable with data translated from the other.
  4. Useful translations must be possible in the absence of mapping information specifically intended to guide the translation.
  5. It must be possible to provide specific mapping information in order to achieve an optimal (guided) translation.
  6. Constructs that cannot be handled by the translation mechanism (if any) must be specified in the Guidelines.
  7. Advice must be given to authors on how to ensure maximum interoperability.
  8. The results of a translation must be deterministic.
  9. The Guidelines themselves must not reference any namespaces apart from RDF, RDFS, OWL, XSD, TM, and RDFTM except to provide examples. (Guidance must be able to reference any namespace.)

SHOULD

  1. Round-tripping should be possible with both guided and unguided translations.
  2. It should be possible to implement the translation using event-based processing.
  3. Properties and classes defined in RDF, RDFS, OWL, and TMDM should be used where possible in order to aid and guide translations.
  4. There should be just one vocabulary that covers both directions and can be expressed in either RDF or Topic Maps.
  5. The results of a guided and an unguided translation should be as similar as possible.
  6. The translation mechanism should be capable of handling every possible construct in the source paradigm.

3. Informal description

This chapter is informative: it provides a readable, informal, but essentially complete overview of how constructs in the two paradigms relate to each other. Details and formal definitions are left to Chapter 5.

The mapping mechanism consists of properties and classes in the rdftm: namespace that can be easily translated into TMs. The guidance consists in expressing some properties and some classes in RDF vocabularies as subproperties and subclasses of these rdftm: properties and classes, respectively.

The following classes and properties have so far been identified:

  • Classes:
    • rdftm:InformationResource
    • rdftm:NamingProperty
    • rdftm:OccurrenceProperty
  • Properties:
    • rdftm:subjectIdentifier
    • rdftm:subject-role
    • rdftm:object-role
    • rdftm:variant
    • rdftm:scope

In order to represent Topic Maps associations examples in this section we use the syntax described as follows.

The assertion:

  • "A, B, and C are related by means of the association p, the role type of A in the association is ra, that of B is rb, while that of C is rc. This assertion is valid in the context (scope) represented by S",

where A, B, C, and S are topics, ra, rb, and rc are role types, and p represents the association relating A and B, is expressed with the following syntax 3.1 Things and proxies

There is a fundamental equivalence between subjects and resources. This equivalence may be refined as follows:

  1. Topics are to subjects as RDF nodes (excluding literals) are to resources. Subjects and resources are the "things" (entities, concepts, documents, whatever) about which assertions are made. Topics and RDF nodes (excluding literals) are the corresponding "proxies" that represent subjects and resources within the Topic Maps and RDF models respectively.
  2. In RDF, the distinction between the "thing" and its "proxy" tends to be blurred. In what follows we will therefore use the term "resource" rather than "RDF node" in order to stay closer to everyday RDF parlance.

Given the above, topics that have one or more characteristics should always be mapped to resources, since a topic only exists in order to make assertions about its subject and the only way to make an assertion in RDF is to create a statement whose subject is a resource. Resources which are the subjects of RDF statements should always be mapped to topics. However, resources which are only objects of statements may not always be mapped to topics. (This will be discussed further below.)

3.2 Assertions, types, and properties

There is a general correspondence between TM assertions and RDF statements, and between the type of a TM assertion and the property of an RDF statement.

3.3 Identity

Resource URIs, subject identifiers, subject locators, source locators. Blank nodes.

Both topics and resources may use URI references (or URIrefs) as identifiers (the term URIref is used here in accordance with W3C usage to mean a URI with an optional fragment identifier). However, in Topic Maps there are two ways in which a URIref can be used to identify a subject:

  • directly, as the actual locator of the subject, in which case it is called a "subject locator"; or
  • indirectly, as the locator of an information resource that provides some human-interpretable indication of the subject, in which case it is called a "subject identifier". It is always clear, in both the model and the interchange syntax, whether the URIref is a subject locator or a subject identifier.

RDF does not make this distinction explicitly. The question therefore arises, when going from RDF to Topic Maps, whether to map the URIref of a resource to a subject locator or to a subject identifier; and, conversely, when going from Topic Maps to RDF, whether to map subject locators or subject identifiers (or neither, or both) to the URIrefs of resources.

Any solution which favours one type of identifier (say, subject identifiers) will lead to unnatural results with the identifiers of the other type. These guidelines therefore suggest a solution that retains some of the ambiguity of the RDF approach while at the same time preserving enough information to be able to perform roundtripping. The solution hinges on the assumption that topics with subject locators are explicitly or implicitly instances of the class InformationResource.

The classes and properties involved in the guidance for Identity are the following:

  • rdftm:InformationResource
  • rdftm:subjectIdentifier
  • rdfs:subPropertyOf
  • rdfs:subClassOf
  • owl:sameAs

The rules for translation are as follows:

3.3.1 Guided RDFTM

Resources become Topics. The guidance indicates if the resource's URI must be translated as a subject locator or a subject identifier. That is, it indicates whether the resource is an information resource or not. In order to specify the nature of the resource the class rdftm:InformationResource is used. It is also possible to define explicitly properties as being rdfs:subPropertyOf the rdftm:subjectIdentifier in order to translate their values as subject identifiers.

In particular:

  • If the resource is an instance of rdftm:InformationResource, the resource's URI becomes a subject locator. Any owl:sameAs properties become additional subject locators. The values of properties that are rdfs:subPropertyOf the property rdftm:subjectIdentifier become subject identifiers.
  • If the resource is not explicitly an instance of rdftm:InformationResource, then the URI becomes a subject identifier. Any owl:sameAs properties become additional subject identifiers. The values of properties that are rdfs:subPropertyOf the property rdftm:subjectIdentifier become subject identifiers.
  • Blank nodes become topics with no identifier.

3.3.2 Guided TMRDF

Topics becomes Resources. It is always clear if the URIs associated to a topic identifies the real subject (i.e. the topic is the subject itself) or information resources describing the subject.

Topics map to resources, and there are two possible cases: (i) the topic represents an information resources and (ii) the topic represents another kind of resource. In (i) the topic will have at least one subject locator, and optionally one or more subject identifiers. In (ii) the topic will have at least one subject identifier and no subject locator.

In particular,

  • If the topic has one or more subject locators, one subject locator (chosen at random) becomes the URI of the resource, and, if the topic is not explicitly an instance of rdftm:InformationResource, then the resource is typed as rdftm:InformationResource. Additional subject locators become owl:sameAs properties. Any subject identifier becomes a rdftm:subjectIdentifier property.
  • If the topic has one or more subject identifiers and no subject locators, one subject identifier (chosen at random) becomes the URI of the resource. Additional subject identifiers become owl:sameAs properties.
  • Source locators [item identifiers] are discarded.
  • Topics with neither subject identifier nor subject locator become blank nodes.

3.3.3 Unguided RDFTM and TMRDF

3.4 Names

Both in RDF and Topic Maps it is possible to associate a resource and a topic to a name. In RDF a name is represented as the value of a property, in Topic Maps name types are used. Given this, properties map to name types and vice versa. However, in past Topic Maps specifications there were also untyped names. In order to be compliant to the current specification, Topic Maps document authors has to substitute untyped names with the iso:topic-name.

The property rdfs:label deserves particular attention. It may be used in RDF in order to provide a human-readable version of a resource's name. However, rdfs:label has something special if we deal with migration of RDF to OWL ontologies, and in particular if we want our ontology to be OWL DL compliant. In fact, rdfs:label is predefined as an instance of owl:AnnotationProperty. Hence, it cannot be used in property axioms. The only information in axioms for them is annotations. For more details the reader can refer to [OWL-ref] and [OWL-sem].

The classes and properties involved in the guidance for names are the followings:

Given this, the rules for names translation are the followings:

3.4.1 Guided RDFTM

  • Properties map to name types, which are subtypes of rdftm:NamingProperty.

3.4.2 Guided TMRDF

  • Name types map to properties, which are instances of rdftm:NamingProperty.
  • If the topic has an untyped name, then the corresponding RDF resource becomes the subject of a iso:topic-name property, the value of which is the untyped name. This allows to be compliant with Topic Maps specification. The iso:topic-name is then declared to be an instance of rdftm:NamingProperty.

3.4.3 Unguided RDFTM and TMRDF

3.4.4 Variants

Topic Maps has the concept of variant names, which are always associated to a scope. Both variant and scope are Topic Maps concepts that do not have a direct matching in RDF. Tha approach is to use a single property for the name (as described above), to create a statement for the assertion and to reify the statement in order to attach the variants.

The rules for translating variant names are the followings:

3.4.4.1 Guided TM2RDF

  • Name types map to properties, which are instances of rdftm:NamingProperty.
  • The resource, property and name value of the assertion became the subject, the predicate, and the object of a rdf:Statement, respectively.
  • Variant names map to rdftm:variant properties.
  • The scopes of the variant names map to rdftm:scope properties.

3.4.4.2 Guided RDF2TM

  • Properties map to name types, which are subtypes of rdftm:NamingProperty.
  • Each block composed of a rdf:Statement, the predicate of which is a naming property (i.e., instance of rdftm:NamingProperty), refied by rdftm:variant properties with scope properties is translated to a name type assertion with those variants and scopes.

3.5 Relationships

Both RDF and Topic Maps have the concept of relationship.

The RDF is a model of triples, hence relationships are binary. Each of them is represented by a subject, a property and an object. The subject is either a URIref or a blank node, and the object, which is the value of the property, can be a literal, a URIref, or a blank node. Topic Maps defines the concept of association, which is intended to be n-ary (e.g., unary, binary, and so on). Each association has a type and n roles players. [Noy 05] identifies patterns for representing n-ary relations in RDF. While Topic Maps has the concept of role player, each of which may be given a type, RDF has only two roles in relations, subject and object.

There is a special type of relation in Topic Maps named occurence. An occurrence is a relation between a subject and an information resource. The information resource may either be a value inside the topic map or an external information resource. Occurrences correspond to RDF single statements. In TM2RDF the conversion is simple, while in RDF2TM it is an issue to decide how to treat a RDF statement: either as an occurrence or an association.

3.5.1 Binary associations

Consider the following binary association in Topic Maps:

born-in( puccini : person, lucca : place )

used to state that the composer Puccini was born in Lucca. This assertion would be represented in RDF as follows:

ex:puccini bio:born-in ex:lucca.

The properties involved in the guidance for translation of binary associations are the followings:

  • rdftm:subject-role
  • rdftm:object-rule

3.5.1.1 Guided RDF2TM

  • A RDF statement becomes a Topic Maps binary association.
  • The Topic Maps binary association will have two role types.
  • Role types are identified by the values of rdftm:subject-role and rdftm:object-role properties applied to the predicate of the statement. In particular:
    • the value of rdftm:subject-role identifies the role type of the statement's subject,
    • the value of rdftm:object-role identifies the role type of the statement's object.

Example:

ex:puccini bio:born-in ex:lucca
bio:born-in rdftm:subject-role bio:person
bio:born-in rdftm:object-role geo:place

becomes:

bio-born( puccini : person, lucca : place ).

3.5.1.2 Guided TM2RDF

  • A Topic Maps binary association becomes a RDF statement.
  • The topic playing the first role type becomes the subject of the statement.
  • The topic playing the second role type becomes the object of the statement.
  • The association becomes the predicate of the statement.
  • Information about the role types are stored as values of rdftm:subject-role and rdftm:object-role properties applied to the predicate of the statement. In particular:
    • the value of rdftm:subject-role identifies the role type of the statement's subject,
    • the value of rdftm:object-role identifies the role type of the statement's object.

Example:

bio-born( puccini : person, lucca : place )

becomes:

ex:puccini bio:born-in ex:lucca
bio:born-in rdftm:subject-role bio:person
bio:born-in rdftm:object-role geo:place
.

3.5.1.3 Unguided RDF2TM

3.5.1.4 Unguided TM2RDF

3.5.2 Occurrences

Topic Maps defines an occurrence as a special type of association. Occurences can be internal and external. An occurence is a bynary association between a subject and an information resource. In particular, the value of an internal occurrence is a string and can have a datatype that is not a URI. If the datatype is a URI then the occurrence is external. Occurrences bacome RDF properties.

RDF does not have the concept of occurrence, so the problem is to to decide if a RDF property has to be treated either as a Topic Maps association or a Topic Maps occurrence.

The classes and properties involved in the guidance for occurrences are the followings:

  • rdftm:OccurrenceProperty which is defined as rdfs:subpropertyOf rdf:Property.

Given this, the rules for translation are the followings:

3.5.2.1 Guided TM2RDF
  • Occurences become RDF properties, which are defined to be instances of rdftm:OccurrenceProperty.
3.5.2.2 Guided RDF2TM
  • RDF properties which are instances of rdftm:OccurrenceProperty are translated to Topic Maps occurrences.
    • If the value of the property is a literal, then it is translated to a Topic Maps internal occurrence.
    • If the value of the property has a datatype, which is not a URI, then the property is transalted to a Topic Maps internal occurrence.
    • If the value of the property has a datatype, which is a URI, then the property is transalted to a Topic Maps external occurrence.

3.5.3 Type-instance relationships

The type-instance relationship is inherently binary, stating that some instance belongs to the extension of some class. In RDF this is expressed by means of an "ex:instance rdf:type ex:class" statement. In Topic Maps the equivalent statement would (in LTM syntax) be expressed as "iso:type-instance( instance : iso:instance, class : iso:type )".

In other words, both RDF and Topic Maps provide special vocabulary for expressing this particular relationship, without making the relationship part of the model proper. This means that in translating between the two, in this particular case it is necessary to mediate between the two built-in vocabularies.

The rules for translation are as follows:

RDFTM

  • Every RDF triple of the form: ex:a rdf:type ex:b becomes a Topic Maps association of the form iso:type-instance( a : iso:instance, b : iso:type )
TMRDF

  • Every Topic Maps association of the form iso:type-instance(a : iso:instance, b : iso:type) becomes a RDF triple of the form ex:a rdf:type ex:b

3.5.4 Supertype-subtype relationships

Like the type-instance relationship, this relationship is by its very nature binary, and like type-instance it is represented in both RDF and Topic Maps using a special vocabulary external to the model itself. In RDF, the fact that A is a subclass of B is expressed with the statement "ex:A rdfs:subclassOf ex:B", whereas in Topic Maps it is expressed with the association "iso:supertype-subtype( A : iso:subtype, B: iso:supertype )".

RDFTM

  • Every statement of the form ex:A rdfs:subclassOf ex:B becomes a Topic Maps association of the form iso:supertype-subtype( x : iso:subtype, y : iso:supertype ).
TMRDF

  • Every association of the form iso:supertype-subtype( x : iso:subtype, y : iso:supertype ) becomes a RDF statement of the form ex:A rdfs:subclassOf ex:B.

3.5.5 Unary relationships

3.5.6 N-ary relationships

The issue of handling n-ary relationships is strictly connected to the work that is currently undertaken by Natasha Noy, Alan Rector and Christopher Welty [Noy 05]. Even if the document already depicts useful patterns for describing n-ary relations in RDF, the authors are working on a specific vocabulary for this aim. Given this, we are waiting the draft of that wocabulary in order to fix the rules mapping rules for n-ary relations. In fact, we concluded that is mandatory to share the same vocabulary in place of defining our own.

3.6 Datatypes

3.7 Reification

3.8 Scope

Topic Maps defines the concept of scope as the context within which a statement is valid. Formally the scope is composed of a set of topics that together define the context. RDF does not have a matching concept, nor does it define any vocabulary for the representation of context.

For interoperability between RDF and Topic Maps, this guideline document defines a specific property in the rdftm: vocabulary, to be used with reified statements, in order to specify in what context the statement can be considered valid.

The following property is involved in the guidance for translation of scope:

  • rdftm:scope

Guided RDF2TM
  • Every set of RDF assertions of the form:

    ex:X rdf:type rdf:Statement
    ex:X rdf:Subject ex:A
    ex:X rdf:Predicate ex:p
    ex:X rdf:Object ex:B
    ex:X rdftm:scope ex:S

    maps to a Topic Maps assertion of the form:

    p( A , B ) / S

Guided TM2RDF
  • Every Topic Maps assertion of the form:

    p( A , B ) / S

    maps to a set of RDF assertions of the form:

    ex:X rdf:type rdf:Statement
    ex:X rdf:Subject ex:A
    ex:X rdf:Predicate ex:p
    ex:X rdf:Object ex:B
    ex:X rdftm:scope ex:S

Note: some issues here are not still covered. For instance, how is a scope consisting of more than one topic represented, and what happens if two equal statements have different scopes.

3.8.1 Language tags

4 Authoring guidelines

@@ To be done

4.1 Guidelines for authors of RDF

4.2 Guidelines for authors of Topic Maps

@@ To be done

This section will contain recommendations for people creating RDF and TM data, basically to tell them what to do and what to avoid in order to ensure maximum RDF/TM interoperability. It will be filled when both the guided and unguided translation rules will be in place, since only then will we really know what to tell people.

5. Translation guidelines: formal rules

@@ To be done

5.1 RDF to Topic Maps

5.2 Topic Maps to RDF

6. Conclusion

@@ To be done

8. References

[Ciancarini 03]
Ciancarini, Paolo; Gentilucci, Riccardo; Pirruccio, Marco; Presutti, Valentina; Vitali, Fabio: Metadata on the Web: On the integration of RDF and Topic Maps, http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme03/html/2003/Presutti01/EML2003Presutti01.html (2003)

[Garshol 01]
Garshol, Lars Marius: Topic maps, RDF, DAML, OIL: A comparison, http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdfoildaml.html (2001)

[Garshol 02]
Garshol, Lars Marius: An RDF Schema for topic maps, http://psi.ontopia.net/rdf/ (2002)

[Garshol 03a]
Garshol, Lars Marius: Living with Topic Maps and RDF, http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html (2003)

[Garshol 03b]
Garshol, Lars Marius: The RTM RDF to topic maps mapping: Definition and introduction, http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/rdf2tm.html (2003)

[Gentilucci 02]
Gentilucci, Riccardo; Pirruccio, Marco: Metainformazioni sul World Wide Web: Conversione di formato e navigazione, University of Bologna, Masters Thesis, (2002; in print; in Italian)

[Kaminsky 02]
Kaminsky, Piotr: Integrating Information on the Semantic Web Using Partially Ordered Multi Hypersets, http://www.ideanest.com/braque/Thesis-web.pdf (2002)

[Lacher 01]
Lacher, Martin S.; Decker, Stefan: On the Integration of Topic Maps and RDF Data, http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme03/html/2001/Lacher01/EML2001Lacher01-toc.html (2001)

[LTM]
Garshol, Lars Marius: The Linear Topic Map Notation: Definition and introduction, version 1.2, http://www.ontopia.net/download/ltm.html (2002)

[Mindswap 02]
MindSwap: RDF Converter, http://www.mindswap.org/2002/rdfconvert/ (2002)

[Moore 01]
Moore, Graham: RDF and Topic Maps: An exercise in convergence, http://xml.coverpages.org/moore-topicmapsrdf200105.pdf (2001)

[N3]
Berners-Lee, Tim: Notation 3, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html (2001)

[Noy 05]
Noy, Natasha; Rector, Alan: Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web: Use With Individuals, href="http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.html">n-ary patterns(2005)

[Ogievetsky 01a]
Ogievetsky, Nikita: Harvesting XML Topic Maps from RDF, http://www.cogx.com/kt2001 (2001)

[Ogievetsky 01b]
Ogievetsky, Nikita: XML Topic Maps through RDF glasses, http://www.cogx.com/rdfglasses.html (2001)

[Ogievetsky 02]
Ogievetsky, Nikita: DAML and Quantum Topic Maps, http://www.cogx.com/kt2002/ (2002)

[Ontopia 03a]
Ontopia: RTM: An RDF-to-TM mapping, http://psi.ontopia.net/rdf2tm/ (2003)

[Ontopia 03b]
Ontopia: TMR: A TM-to-RDF mapping, http://psi.ontopia.net/tm2rdf/ (2003)

[Ontopia 04]
Ontopia: tolog: Language tutorial, http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/docs/query/tutorial.html (2004)

[Ontopia 05]
Ontopia: Omnigator Eight, http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/ (2005)

[OWL]
Smith, Michael K.; Welty, Chris; McGuiness?, Deborah L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ (W3C Recommendation, 2004)

[Pepper 00]
Pepper, Steve: The TAO of Topic Maps: Finding the Way in the Age of Infoglut, http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html (2000)

[Pepper 03]
Pepper, Steve; Schwab, Sylvia: Curing the Web's Identity Crisis: Subject Indicators for RDF, http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/identitycrisis.html (2003)

[Pepper 05]
Pepper, Steve: Italian Opera Topic Map, http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/docs/navigator/opera.hytm (2005)

[PMTM4]
Biezunski, Michel; Newcomb, Steven R.: Topicmaps.net's Processing Model for XTM 1.0, version 1.0.2, http://topicmaps.net/pmtm4.htm (2001)

[Prudhommeaux 02]
Prud'hommeaux, Eric; Moore, Graham: RDF Topic Map Mapping, http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/ (2002)

[RDF-Primer]
Manola, Frank; Miller, Eric: RDF Primer, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/ (W3C Recommendation, 2004)

[RDF-Schema]
Brickley, Dan; Guha, R.V.: RDF Schema, <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/ (W3C Recommendation, 2004)

[RDF-Semantics]
Hayes, Patrick: RDF Semantics, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ (W3C Recommendation, 2004)

[TAG]
Jacobs, Ian; Walsh, Norman: Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One, http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ (W3C Recommendation, 2004)

[TMDM]
Garshol, Lars Marius; Moore, Graham: ISO/IEC 13250: Topic Maps — Data Model, http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/ (Final Committee Draft, 2005)

[TMRM]
Durusau, Patrick; Newcomb, Steven R.: ISO/IEC 13250: Topic Maps — Reference Model, http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmmm/TMMM-4.6/TMMM-4.6.html (Working Draft, 2004)

[Vatant 04]
Vatant, Bernard: Ontology-driven topic maps, http://www.idealliance.org/europe/04/call/xmlpapers/03-03-03.91/.03-03-03.html (2004)

[Vlist 01]
Vlist, Eric van der: Representing XML Topic Maps as RDF, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0050.html (2001)

[XTM1.0]
Pepper, Steve; Moore, Graham: XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0, http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/ (2001)

[XTM1.1]
Garshol, Lars Marius; Moore, Graham: ISO/IEC 13250: Topic Maps — XML Syntax, http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/ (Final Committee Draft, 2005)

[OWL-ref]
Dean, Schreiber, et al.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/ (W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004)

[OWL-sem]
Patel-Schneider, Hayes, Horrocks: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ (W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004)

Valid XHTML 1.0!


to top


RDFTM.RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelines moved from RDFTM.RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelinesSP on 19 Sep 2005 - 11:12 by ValentinaPresutti - put it back
You are here: RDFTM > RDFTMMappingGuidelines > RDFTMInteroperabilityGuidelines

to top

Copyright © 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Fabio's Wiki? Send feedback