OWL Web本體語言概述推薦標準

TransWiki - W3CHINA.ORG开放翻译计划（OTP）

建議翻譯時，請保留英文原文，以便複查和校對。

OWL Web Ontology Language Overview

OWL Web 本體語言概述

W3C 建議書 2004 年 2 月 10 日

目前版本:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
最新版本:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
前一版本:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-features-20031215/
編者:
Deborah L. McGuinness (Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University)

Frank van Harmelen (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam) Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl
請參考本文的勘誤表，那裡可能會有一些標準訂正。
也可以查看相關翻譯。
版權 © 1994-2003 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), 保留所有版權。W3C責任歸屬，商標，文件使用以及軟體版權都適用。

Abstract

The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full.
This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

摘要

Web 本體語言﹙OWL﹚是為處理資訊內容的應用程式而設計，不是給人類呈現資訊用的。OWL 藉由提供網路內容正式的語義與附加詞彙，使得這些內容比僅僅由 XML，RDF，RDF Schema 所支援的網路內容可以讓更多的機器更容易解讀。
這份文件是寫給想要初步了解 OWL 功能的讀者。文中是透過描述﹙非正式的﹚每一個 OWL 子語言的特色來介紹 OWL。若是懂得 RDF Schema，將對了解本文會很有幫助，但並非是必要。閱讀完本文之後，有興趣的讀者可以繼續閱讀 OWL 指南，了解更多 OWL 各種特性的詳細敘述與範例。而 OWL 標準規範的正式定義可以參考 OWL 語義與慨念語法。

Status of this document

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties, and it has been endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.
This is one of six parts of the W3C Recommendation for OWL, the Web Ontology Language. It has been developed by the Web Ontology Working Group as part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity (Activity Statement, Group Charter) for publication on 10 February 2004.
The design of OWL expressed in earlier versions of these documents has been widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements. The Working Group has addressed all comments received, making changes as necessary. Changes to this document since the Proposed Recommendation version are detailed in the change log.
Comments are welcome at public-webont-comments@w3.org (archive) and general discussion of related technology is welcome at www-rdf-logic@w3.org (archive).
A list of implementations (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls) is available.
The W3C maintains a list of any patent disclosures related to this work.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

本文件狀態

本文件已經由 W3C 的成員與相關委員會審閱，並且由計劃主持人簽署成為 W3C 推薦標準。在制定推薦標準過程中，W3C 的角色是引起大眾對規格的注意並且使其廣泛的傳播，從而促進 Web 的功能與互動。

本文是 W3C 有關 Web 本體語言 OWL 推薦標準的六個部分之一。它由 W3C 語意網組織底下的 Web 本體語言工作小組開發，並於 2004 年 2 月 10 日發布。

本文件在過去的幾個版本中已經對 OWL 的設計做了說明，已經被廣泛的審閱過，並且已符合工作小組的各種技術要求。工作小組已經處理了所有收到的意見，並做了必要的修改。本文件自從成為建議推薦標準版本一來的所有修改都詳細紀錄在變更日誌中。

歡迎利用 public-webont-comments@w3.org (mailto:public-webont-comments@w3.org) 提出您的意見，或是利用 www-rdf-logic@w3.org (mailto:www-rdf-logic@w3.org) 參與相關技術的討論。

有關應用 (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls)的清單可以從這裡獲得。

W3C 並且維護一份與這些工作相關的專利聲明清單 (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/discl)。

本段敘述僅反映本文件在發布當時的狀態，其他文件可能會取代本文件。關於 W3C 已發布的文件和最新的技術報告清單可以在 W3C 技術報告索引頁 (http://www.w3.org/TR/)取得。

Table of contents

Introduction
1. Document Roadmap
2. Why OWL?
3. The three sublanguages of OWL
4. The structure of this document
Language Synopsis
1. OWL Lite Synopsis
2. OWL DL and OWL Full Synopsis
Language Description of OWL Lite
1. OWL Lite RDF Schema Features
2. OWL Lite Equality and Inequality
3. OWL Lite Property Characteristics
4. OWL Lite Property Restrictions
5. OWL Lite Restricted Cardinality
6. OWL Lite Class Intersection
7. OWL Datatypes
8. OWL Lite Header Information
9. OWL Lite Annotation Properties
10. OWL Lite Versioning
Incremental Language Description of OWL DL and OWL Full
Summary

References

Acknowledgements

Change Log

目錄

引言
1. 文件指南
2. 為什麼需要 OWL?
3. OWL 的三個子語言
4. 本文件的架構
語言概要
1. OWL Lite 概要
2. OWL DL 與 OWL Full 概要
OWL Lite 語言描述
1. OWL Lite 的 RDF Schema 特徵
2. OWL Lite 的等式與不等式
3. OWL Lite 的屬性特色
4. OWL Lite 的屬性限制
5. OWL Lite 的基數限制
6. OWL Lite Class 的交集
7. OWL 資料型態
8. OWL Lite 表頭信息
9. OWL Lite 的註解屬性
10. OWL Lite 的版本
OWL DL 與 OWL Full 的附加語言描述
總結

參考文獻

致謝

更新日誌

1. Introduction

This document describes the OWL Web Ontology Language. OWL is intended to be used when the information contained in documents needs to be processed by applications, as opposed to situations where the content only needs to be presented to humans. OWL can be used to explicitly represent the meaning of terms in vocabularies and the relationships between those terms. This representation of terms and their interrelationships is called an ontology. OWL has more facilities for expressing meaning and semantics than XML, RDF, and RDF-S, and thus OWL goes beyond these languages in its ability to represent machine interpretable content on the Web. OWL is a revision of the DAML+OIL web ontology language incorporating lessons learned from the design and application of DAML+OIL.

1. 引言

本文描述 OWL Web 本體語言。OWL 是為了讓應用程式可以處理文件中所包含的訊息而設計，有別於僅僅需要將內容呈現給人類了解。OWL 可以明確地表達詞彙中的專有名詞以及這些專有名詞之間的關係。這種專有名詞的表述和他們的相互關係稱為本體。在含義與語意的表達上，OWL 的能力比 XML，RDF 與 RDF-S 更好，因此，OWL 在陳述網際網路機讀內容的能力，也超過這些語言。OWL 是 DAML+OIL web 本體語言合併 DAML+OIL 的設計與應用之後的修訂版。

1.1 Document Roadmap

The OWL Language is described by a set of documents, each fulfilling a different purpose, and catering to a different audience. The following provides a brief roadmap for navigating through this set of documents:

This OWL Overview gives a simple introduction to OWL by providing a language feature listing with very brief feature descriptions;
The OWL Guide demonstrates the use of the OWL language by providing an extended example. It also provides a glossary of the terminology used in these documents;
The OWL Reference gives a systematic and compact (but still informally stated) description of all the modelling primitives of OWL;
The OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax document is the final and formally stated normative definition of the language;
The OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases document contains a large set of test cases for the language;
The OWL Use Cases and Requirements document contains a set of use cases for a web ontology language and compiles a set of requirements for OWL.

The suggested reading order of the first four documents is as given since they have been listed in increasing degree of technical content. The last two documents complete the documentation set.

1.1 文件指南

OWL 語言有一系列的說明文件﹐每一個文件都有其目的與訴求對象。底下是我們所提供瀏覽這些文件的簡要指南﹕

OWL 概述(OWL Overview)﹐即本文﹐簡單的介紹了 OWL 語言。它列出了OWL 語言各項特徵並加以簡要的解釋﹔
OWL 指南(OWL Guide) 提供一個延伸的範例來說明如何使用 OWL 語言。另外﹐它也提供了這些文件中所提到的術語詞彙表﹔
OWL 參考(OWL Reference) 以系統化和簡潔的方式(不過﹐仍是非正式地)描述所有的 OWL 建模原詞(modelling primitives)﹔
OWL 語意與概念語法文件是OWL 語言最後並且是正式指定的基本定義﹔
OWL Web 本體語言測試案例文件包含了本語言大量的測試案例﹔
OWL Web 本體語言使用案例與需求文件包含一系列的Web 本體語言使用案例與 OWL 的需求彙編。

前四個文件﹐建議您依序閱讀﹐因為它們是依照技術內容的等級排列的。最後兩個文件對整系列的文件作個總結。

1.2 Why OWL?

The Semantic Web is a vision for the future of the Web in which information is given explicit meaning, making it easier for machines to automatically process and integrate information available on the Web. The Semantic Web will build on XML's ability to define customized tagging schemes and RDF's flexible approach to representing data. The first level above RDF required for the Semantic Web is an ontology language what can formally describe the meaning of terminology used in Web documents. If machines are expected to perform useful reasoning tasks on these documents, the language must go beyond the basic semantics of RDF Schema. The OWL Use Cases and Requirements Document provides more details on ontologies, motivates the need for a Web Ontology Language in terms of six use cases, and formulates design goals, requirements and objectives for OWL.
OWL has been designed to meet this need for a Web Ontology Language. OWL is part of the growing stack of W3C recommendations related to the Semantic Web.

XML provides a surface syntax for structured documents, but imposes no semantic constraints on the meaning of these documents.
XML Schema is a language for restricting the structure of XML documents and also extends XML with datatypes.
RDF is a datamodel for objects ("resources") and relations between them, provides a simple semantics for this datamodel, and these datamodels can be represented in an XML syntax.
RDF Schema is a vocabulary for describing properties and classes of RDF resources, with a semantics for generalization-hierarchies of such properties and classes.
OWL adds more vocabulary for describing properties and classes: among others, relations between classes (e.g. disjointness), cardinality (e.g. "exactly one"), equality, richer typing of properties, characteristics of properties (e.g. symmetry), and enumerated classes.

1.2 為什麼需要 OWL？

語意網是網站未來的展望﹐屆時網路上的資訊都會被賦予明確的意義﹐讓機器可以自動處理並加以整合。它是建立在 XML 可以自訂標籤架構與 RDF 可以靈活描述資料的根基上。語意網在使用 RDF 之前﹐還需要一個正式用來描述網站文件裡專門用語的本體語言。此外﹐如果期望機器可以執行更有效的推理任務﹐那麼這個語言就必須超越 RDF 模組的基本語意架構。「OWL 實例與需求」文件將以六個使用實例﹑並有系統地闡述 OWL 的設計目的﹑需求與目標﹐來提供更詳細的本體資料與所帶動的 Web 實體語言需求。
OWL 就是設計來符合Web 本體語言需求的﹐而它也是目前 W3C 為語意網積極發展的眾多推薦標準的一部份。

XML 提供一個建構文件的表層語法﹐卻不會替這些文件的意義帶來任何語意上的限制。
XML 模組是用來規範 XML 文件與擴充 XML 資料型態的語言。
RDF 是一種資料模型﹐用來描述物件 (“資源”) 與彼此間的關係。它為這種資料模型提供了一種簡單的語意﹐而這些資料模型都可以用 XML 語法來表示。
RDF 模組是用來描述 RDF 資源的屬性與類別的語彙。它對這些屬性與類別的普遍的等級架構具有語意。
OWL 新增了更多的語彙來描述這些屬性與類別﹕其他之中 (among others)﹐ 類別之間的關係 (relations between classes如﹕解體disjointness)﹐基數 (cardinality如﹕剛好一個exactly one)﹐相等 (equality)﹐屬性的多元型態 (richer typing of properties)﹐屬性的特徵 (characteristics of properties 例如﹕對稱 symmetry)﹐與列舉類別 (enumerated classes)。

1.3 The three sublanguages of OWL

OWL provides three increasingly expressive sublanguages designed for use by specific communities of implementers and users.

OWL Lite supports those users primarily needing a classification hierarchy and simple constraints. For example, while it supports cardinality constraints, it only permits cardinality values of 0 or 1. It should be simpler to provide tool support for OWL Lite than its more expressive relatives, and OWL Lite provides a quick migration path for thesauri and other taxonomies. Owl Lite also has a lower formal complexity than OWL DL, see the section on OWL Lite in the OWL Reference for further details.
OWL DL supports those users who want the maximum expressiveness while retaining computational completeness (all conclusions are guaranteed to be computable) and decidability (all computations will finish in finite time). OWL DL includes all OWL language constructs, but they can be used only under certain restrictions (for example, while a class may be a subclass of many classes, a class cannot be an instance of another class). OWL DL is so named due to its correspondence with description logics, a field of research that has studied the logics that form the formal foundation of OWL.
OWL Full is meant for users who want maximum expressiveness and the syntactic freedom of RDF with no computational guarantees. For example, in OWL Full a class can be treated simultaneously as a collection of individuals and as an individual in its own right. OWL Full allows an ontology to augment the meaning of the pre-defined (RDF or OWL) vocabulary. It is unlikely that any reasoning software will be able to support complete reasoning for every feature of OWL Full.

Each of these sublanguages is an extension of its simpler predecessor, both in what can be legally expressed and in what can be validly concluded. The following set of relations hold. Their inverses do not.

Every legal OWL Lite ontology is a legal OWL DL ontology.
Every legal OWL DL ontology is a legal OWL Full ontology.
Every valid OWL Lite conclusion is a valid OWL DL conclusion.
Every valid OWL DL conclusion is a valid OWL Full conclusion.

Ontology developers adopting OWL should consider which sublanguage best suits their needs. The choice between OWL Lite and OWL DL depends on the extent to which users require the more-expressive constructs provided by OWL DL. The choice between OWL DL and OWL Full mainly depends on the extent to which users require the meta-modeling facilities of RDF Schema (e.g. defining classes of classes, or attaching properties to classes). When using OWL Full as compared to OWL DL, reasoning support is less predictable since complete OWL Full implementations do not currently exist.
OWL Full can be viewed as an extension of RDF, while OWL Lite and OWL DL can be viewed as extensions of a restricted view of RDF. Every OWL (Lite, DL, Full) document is an RDF document, and every RDF document is an OWL Full document, but only some RDF documents will be a legal OWL Lite or OWL DL document. Because of this, some care has to be taken when a user wants to migrate an RDF document to OWL.

When the expressiveness of OWL DL or OWL Lite is deemed appropriate, some precautions have to be taken to ensure that the original RDF document complies with the additional constraints imposed by OWL DL and OWL Lite. Among others, every URI that is used as a class name must be explicitly asserted to be of type owl:Class (and similarly for properties), every individual must be asserted to belong to at least one class (even if only owl:Thing), the URI's used for classes, properties and individuals must be mutually disjoint. The details of these and other constraints on OWL DL and OWL Lite are explained in appendix E of the OWL Reference.

1.3 OWL 的三個子語言

OWL設計了三個不段擴充表現能力的子語言給特定領域的使用者與操作者使用。

OWL Lite 主要是給那些需要一個分類階層和簡單的限制條件的用戶使用。例如，當它支持基數限制條件時，它只允許基數的值是 0或1。與其他更具有表現能力的相關規格比較起來﹐提供處理 OWL Lite 的工具相形簡單多了﹐而且﹐OWL Lite也給詞典和其他分類法提供一個可以迅速轉換的路徑。在複雜程度上面﹐WOL Lite 也比 OWL DL 來的低一些﹐有關詳細情形﹐請參閱文件OWL 參考裡面的 OWL Lite部分。
OWL DL 是給那些需要最強表現能力，卻必須維持計算機使用的完備性（computational completeness，即所有的結論都能夠確保是可以被計算出來的）與可判定性（decidability，即所有的計算都能在有限的時間內完成）的用戶使用。OWL DL 包括 OWL 語言所有的構詞﹙constructs﹚，不過在使用時，必須符合某些約束（例如：當一個類別（class）可能是許多類別的子類別（subclass）時，這個類別就不能是其他類別的實體）。OWL DL 這麼命名是因為它與描述邏輯一致。這個領域所研究的是構成 OWL 主要基礎的邏輯。
OWL Full 是給那些需要最強表現能力與自由的 RDF 語法，即使沒有可計算保證也沒關係的用戶使用。例如，在 OWL Full 裡面，一個類別可以同時被當成是許多個體的匯集並且自己也是裡面的一個個體。它允許一個本體去新增預先定義好的（RDF 或 OWL）詞彙的含意。如此一來，不太可能有推理型的軟體可以完全支援 OWL Full 的推理特性。

在表達與推理上，每個子語言都是它的前身的擴展。這三種子語言間有著以下的關聯。但這些關聯反過來並不成立。

每個合法的 OWL Lite 本體文件都是一個合法的 OWL DL 本體文件；
每個合法的 OWL DL 本體文件都是一個合法的 OWL Full 本體文件；
每個有效的 OWL Lite 結論都是一個有效的 OWL DL 結論；
每個有效的 OWL DL 結論都是一個有效的 OWL Full 結論。

Ontology 的開發人員在採用 OWL 子語言的時候，應該要考慮那一種最符合需求。選擇 OWL Lite 或是 OWL DL 主要取決於用戶所要應用的範圍是否需要 OWL DL 才有的高度表現力的元素。而選擇 OWL DL 或是 OWL Full 主要取決於使用者應用的範圍是否需要 RDF 的元件模組化（meta-modeling）機制，（例如：定義類別的類別或是為替類別附加新的屬性）。最後，在比較 OWL Full 與 OWL DL 對推理能力的支援是比較難預測的，因為目前尚不存在完全支援 OWL Full 的實際應用。

當 OWL DL 或 OWL Lite 的表現能力被認為有需要之後﹐必須注意原來的 RDF 文件是否遵守 OWL DL 或 OWL Lite 對 RDF 所附加的限制。其中﹐每一個作為類別名稱的 URI 都必須明確的宣告為 owl:Class 類型﹙type﹚﹙屬性也是類似﹚。每一個個體必須是少宣告一個隸屬類別﹙即使是只有 owl:Thing﹚。而用於類別﹑屬性或個體的 URI 必須彼此互斥。其他有關 OWL DL 與 OWL Lite 限制的詳細信息會在 OWL 參考文件附錄 E 中解釋。

1.4 The structure of this document

This document first describes the features in OWL Lite, followed by a description of the features that are added in OWL DL and OWL Full (OWL DL and OWL Full contain the same features, but OWL Full is more liberal about how these features can be combined).

1.4 本文件的架構

這份文件首先敘述 OWL Lite 的特性，接著描述在 OWL DL 與 OWL Full 所添加的其他特性（OWL DL 與 OWL Full 包含相同的特性，但是 OWL Full 在這些特性的結合上，具有更多的自由。）

2. Language Synopsis

This section provides a quick index to all the language features for OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full.
In this document, italicized terms are terms in OWL. Prefixes of rdf: or rdfs: are used when terms are already present in RDF or RDF Schema. Otherwise terms are introduced by OWL. Thus, the term rdfs:subPropertyOf indicates that subPropertyOf is already in the rdfs vocabulary (technically : the rdfs namespace). Also, the term Class is more precisely stated as owl:Class and is a term introduced by OWL.

2. 語言概要

本節將提供 OWL Lite﹐ OWL DL﹐ 和 OWL Full 語言特徵的便捷索引。
在這份文件中﹐斜體代表 OWL 裡面的專用詞彙。字首 rdf: 或 rdfs: 表示它們目前已經是 RDF 或 RDF Schema 的專用詞彙。其他的專用詞彙則是由 OWL 引進的。因此﹐rdfs:subPropertyOf 表示 subPropertyOf 已經是 rdfs 的詞彙了﹙從技術面來說﹐即所謂的 rdfs 的名稱空間﹙rdfs namespace﹚﹚。此外﹐ Class 這個專用詞彙更精確的因該寫成 owl:Class﹐它表示這個詞彙是由 OWL 引進的。

2.1 OWL Lite 概要

OWL Lite 語言的構詞﹙constructs﹚羅列如下。

RDF Schema 的特性:

Class (Thing, Nothing)

rdfs:subClassOf

rdf:Property

rdfs:subPropertyOf

rdfs:domain

rdfs:range

Individual

(不)等價:

equivalentClass

equivalentProperty

sameAs

differentFrom

AllDifferent

distinctMembers

屬性特徵:

ObjectProperty

DatatypeProperty

inverseOf

TransitiveProperty

SymmetricProperty

FunctionalProperty

InverseFunctionalProperty

屬性限制:

Restriction

onProperty

allValuesFrom

someValuesFrom

受限基數:

minCardinality (只有 0 或 1)

maxCardinality (只有 0 或 1)

cardinality (只有 0 或 1)

表頭訊息:

Ontology

imports

類別交集:

intersectionOf

資料類型

xsd datatypes

版本訊息:

versionInfo

priorVersion

backwardCompatibleWith

incompatibleWith

DeprecatedClass

DeprecatedProperty

註解屬性:

rdfs:label

rdfs:comment

rdfs:seeAlso

rdfs:isDefinedBy

AnnotationProperty

OntologyProperty

2.2 OWL DL 與 OWL Full 概要

在 OWL Lite 之外，OWL DL 與 OWL Full 語言額外的構詞（constructs）羅列如下：

類別公設:

oneOf, dataRange
disjointWith
equivalentClass（應用於類別表達式）
rdfs:subClassOf（應用於類別表達式）

類別表達的布林組合:

unionOf
complementOf
intersectionOf

任意基數:

minCardinality
maxCardinality
cardinality

資訊篩選::

hasValue

3. Language Description of OWL Lite

This section provides an informal description of the OWL Lite language features. We do not discuss the specific syntax of these features (see the OWL Reference for definitions). Each language feature is hyperlinked to the appropriate place in the OWL Guide for more examples and guidance on usage.
OWL Lite uses only some of the OWL language features and has more limitations on the use of the features than OWL DL or OWL Full. For example, in OWL Lite classes can only be defined in terms of named superclasses (superclasses cannot be arbitrary expressions), and only certain kinds of class restrictions can be used. Equivalence between classes and subclass relationships between classes are also only allowed between named classes, and not between arbitrary class expressions. Similarly, restrictions in OWL Lite use only named classes. OWL Lite also has a limited notion of cardinality - the only cardinalities allowed to be explicitly stated are 0 or 1.

3. OWL Lite 語言描述

本節提供一個非正式的 OWL Lite 語言特徵描述。我們不討論這些特徵的具體語法（參考OWL Reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/)）（参考 OWL Reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/)）。為了方便查看語言特徵的例子與使用指南，每個語言特徵都會有一個連向OWL 指南 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/) 合適地方的連結。
和 OWL DL 與 OWL Full 相比，OWL Lite 只使用了 OWL 語言的部份特徵，而且在使用上有更多的限制。例如，在 OWL Lite 中，類別只能根據父類別（superclass，父類別不能是任意的表達式）的名稱來定義，而且只有某些特定的類別限制（class restrictions）可以使用。類別之間的等價關係（equivalence）與類別間的子類別關係只允許在具名類別（named classes）之間使用，不能應用於任意的類別表達式。類似的狀況，OWL Lite 只允許屬性限制應用在具名的類別上。另外，OWL Lite 對於基數的概念也有所限制--它的取值範圍只能是 0 或 1。

3.1 OWL Lite RDF Schema Features

The following OWL Lite features related to RDF Schema are included.

Class (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_Class): A class defines a group of individuals that belong together because they share some properties. For example, Deborah and Frank are both members of the class Person. Classes can be organized in a specialization hierarchy using subClassOf. There is a built-in most general class named Thing that is the class of all individuals and is a superclass of all OWL classes. There is also a built-in most specific class named Nothing that is the class that has no instances and a subclass of all OWL classes.
rdfs:subClassOf: Class hierarchies may be created by making one or more statements that a class is a subclass of another class. For example, the class Person could be stated to be a subclass of the class Mammal. From this a reasoner can deduce that if an individual is a Person, then it is also a Mammal.
rdf:Property: Properties can be used to state relationships between individuals or from individuals to data values. Examples of properties include hasChild, hasRelative, hasSibling, and hasAge. The first three can be used to relate an instance of a class Person to another instance of the class Person (and are thus occurences of ObjectProperty), and the last (hasAge) can be used to relate an instance of the class Person to an instance of the datatype Integer (and is thus an occurence of DatatypeProperty). Both owl:ObjectProperty and owl:DatatypeProperty are subclasses of the RDF class rdf:Property.
rdfs:subPropertyOf: Property hierarchies may be created by making one or more statements that a property is a subproperty of one or more other properties. For example, hasSibling may be stated to be a subproperty of hasRelative. From this a reasoner can deduce that if an individual is related to another by the hasSibling property, then it is also related to the other by the hasRelative property.
rdfs:domain: A domain of a property limits the individuals to which the property can be applied. If a property relates an individual to another individual, and the property has a class as one of its domains, then the individual must belong to the class. For example, the property hasChild may be stated to have the domain of Mammal. From this a reasoner can deduce that if Frank hasChild Anna, then Frank must be a Mammal. Note that rdfs:domain is called a global restriction since the restriction is stated on the property and not just on the property when it is associated with a particular class. See the discussion below on property restrictions for more information.
rdfs:range: The range of a property limits the individuals that the property may have as its value. If a property relates an individual to another individual, and the property has a class as its range, then the other individual must belong to the range class. For example, the property hasChild may be stated to have the range of Mammal. From this a reasoner can deduce that if Louise is related to Deborah by the hasChild property, (i.e., Deborah is the child of Louise), then Deborah is a Mammal. Range is also a global restriction as is domain above. Again, see the discussion below on local restrictions (e.g. AllValuesFrom) for more information.
Individual : Individuals are instances of classes, and properties may be used to relate one individual to another. For example, an individual named Deborah may be described as an instance of the class Person and the property hasEmployer may be used to relate the individual Deborah to the individual StanfordUniversity.

3.1 OWL Lite 的 RDF Schema 特徵

以下是 OWL Lite 與 RDF Schema 有關的特性：

Class (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_Class): 類別指的是因著擁有某些共同特性的個體所形成的群體。例如，Deborah 和 Frank 都是屬於 Person（人）類別的成員。利用 subClassOf 則可以將許多的類別組成某種特定的層次結構。Thing (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DefiningSimpleClasses) 是一個最基礎的內建類別，所有的個體都屬於這個類別，它也是所有 OWL 類別的父類別。另外還有一個特殊的內建類別Nothing (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DefiningSimpleClasses)，它沒有任何實體，因此是任意 OWL 類別的子類別。
rdfs:subClassOf (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#rdfs_subClassOf)：我們可以利用一個或是多個像是某某類別是另一個類別的子類別這樣的陳述式來建立一個類別層次結構。例如，我們可以說類別 Person（人）是類別 Mammal（哺乳動物）的子類別。如此一來，推理程式就可以據此推出如果某個個體是一個人，那麼他也會是哺乳動物。
rdf:Property (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DefiningProperties)：屬性可以用來陳述個體之間或者個體與數值的關係。屬性的例子包括 hasChild，hasRelative，hasSibling 和 hasAge 等。前三個可以用於表達兩個屬於 Person 類別的不同實體的關係（因而被看作ObjectProperty（物件屬性） (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DefiningProperties)的例子）。最後一個 (hasAge) 則能用來表達屬於 Person 類別的某個個體與某個整數型數值的關係（因而被看作DatatypeProperty（數據屬性） (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DefiningProperties) 的例子）。owl:ObjectProperty 和 owl:DatatypeProperty 都是 RDF 中 rdf:Property 的子類別。
rdfs:subPropertyOf (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#rdfs_subPropertyOf)：我們可以利用一個或是多個像是某某屬性是另一個屬性的子屬性這樣的陳述式來建立一個屬性層次結構。例如，我們可以說 hasSibling 是 hasRelative 的子屬性。如此一來，推理程式就可以據此推出如果一個個體若是與某個個體有 hasSibling 屬性的關係，那麼它也會和該個體有 hasRelative 屬性的關係。
rdfs:domain (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#term_domain)：屬性的定義域是用來約束該屬性可以適用那些個體。如果一個個體與與另外的個體因著某個屬性相關連，而這個屬性的定義域為某個類別，那麼該個體必然屬於該類別。例如，屬性 hasChild 可能聲明其定義域為 Mammal，如此一來，推理程式就可以據此推出如果 Frank hasChild Anna，那麼 Frank 必定是 Mannal。注意："rdfs:domain" 被稱為全域限制，因為該限制是在此屬性宣告的，而不只是當這個屬性套用到某個類別時才聲明。參閱下面有關屬性限制更詳細的討論。
rdfs:range (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#term_range)：屬性的值域是用來限制那些個體可以成為屬性的值。如果一個個體與另外的個體因著某個屬性相關連，而該屬性的值域是一個類別，那麼另外那個個體必然屬於此類別。例如，若是我們宣告屬性 hasChild 的值域是 Mannal，如此一來，推理程式就可以據此推出如果 Louise 與 Deborah 的關聯屬性是 hasChild（即 Deborah 是 Louise 的孩子），那麼 Deborah 必定是 Mannal。值域同上面的定義域一樣都是全域限制。您一樣可以參考下列的區域限制（例如 AllValuesFrom (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#allValuesFrom)）的進一步討論。
Individual (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#term_individual) ：個體是類別的實體，而個體之間可以用屬性相互關聯，例如，一個稱為 "Deborah" 的個體是宣告屬於類別 Person 的一個實體，而我們可以用屬性 hasEmployer 來宣告個體 Deborah 與另外一個個體 StanfordUniversity 的關係。

3.2 OWL Lite Equality and Inequality

The following OWL Lite features are related to equality or inequality.

equivalentClass : Two classes may be stated to be equivalent. Equivalent classes have the same instances. Equality can be used to create synonymous classes. For example, Car can be stated to be equivalentClass to Automobile. From this a reasoner can deduce that any individual that is an instance of Car is also an instance of Automobile and vice versa.

equivalentProperty: Two properties may be stated to be equivalent. Equivalent properties relate one individual to the same set of other individuals. Equality may be used to create synonymous properties. For example, hasLeader may be stated to be the equivalentProperty to hasHead. From this a reasoner can deduce that if X is related to Y by the property hasLeader, X is also related to Y by the property hasHead and vice versa. A reasoner can also deduce that hasLeader is a subproperty of hasHead and hasHead is a subProperty of hasLeader.

sameAs: Two individuals may be stated to be the same. These constructs may be used to create a number of different names that refer to the same individual. For example, the individual Deborah may be stated to be the same individual as DeborahMcGuinness.

differentFrom: An individual may be stated to be different from other individuals. For example, the individual Frank may be stated to be different from the individuals Deborah and Jim. Thus, if the individuals Frank and Deborah are both values for a property that is stated to be functional (thus the property has at most one value), then there is a contradiction. Explicitly stating that individuals are different can be important in when using languages such as OWL (and RDF) that do not assume that individuals have one and only one name. For example, with no additional information, a reasoner will not deduce that Frank and Deborah refer to distinct individuals.

AllDifferent: A number of individuals may be stated to be mutually distinct in one AllDifferent statement. For example, Frank, Deborah, and Jim could be stated to be mutually distinct using the AllDifferent construct. Unlike the differentFrom statement above, this would also enforce that Jim and Deborah are distinct (not just that Frank is distinct from Deborah and Frank is distinct from Jim). The AllDifferent construct is particularly useful when there are sets of distinct objects and when modelers are interested in enforcing the unique names assumption within those sets of objects. It is used in conjunction with distinctMembers to state that all members of a list are distinct and pairwise disjoint.

3.2 OWL Lite 的等價性與不等價性

以下是 OWL Lite 與等價性或不等價性有關的特性：

equivalentClass (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_equivalentClass) ：我們可以宣告兩個類別是等價的，等價的類別擁有相同的實體。它可以被用來建立同義類別。例如，我們可以說類別 Car 與類別 Automobile 是 "equivalentClass"。如此一來，推理程式就可以據此推論，任何 Car 的實體也會是 Automobile 的實體，反之亦然。
equivalentProperty (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_equivalentProperty)：我們可以宣告兩個屬性是等價的，相互等價的屬性將一個個體關聯到同一組其他的個體。它可以被用來建立同義屬性，例如，我們可以說屬性 hasLeader 與屬性 hasHead 是 "equivalentPorperty"。如此一來，推理程式就可以據此推論，如果 X 因著 hasLeader 屬性與 Y 相關連，則 X 也會因著 hasHead 屬性與 Y 相關連，反之亦然。推理程式還可以推論出 HasLeader 是 hasHead 的子屬性，hasHead 同時也是 HasLeader 的子屬性。
sameAs (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_sameAs)：兩個個體也可以被稱為相同。構詞可以用來建立一系列參照到同一個個體的名字。例如，我們可以稱個體 Deborah 與個體 DeborahMcGuinness 是相同的。
differentFrom (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#differentFrom)：我們也可以宣告一個個體與其他的個體相異。例如，我們說個體 Frank 與 Deborah 及 Jim 是相異的個體。這樣一來，當個體 Frank 與 Deborah 被宣告為函數型（functional, 即屬性值最多一個）屬性值的時候，就會有矛盾。在使用 WOL（RDF）等語言的時候﹐由於這些語言不會假設個體擁有（而且只有一個）名字﹐所以明確的宣告個體是相異的就顯得很重要。在沒有額外的資訊下﹐推理程式不會推論出 Deborah 和 Frank 指的是不同的個體。
AllDifferent (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_AllDifferent)：AllDifferent 敘述可以用來宣告一群個體彼此之間兩兩相異。例如﹐Frank﹑Deborah 和 Jim 就可以用 AllDifferent 構詞來宣告彼此相異。這與上述的 DifferentFrom 不同﹐因為它也強調了 Jim 和 Deburah 不同。AllDifferent 這個構詞在一個彼此相異的物件集合中﹐當建立模組的人要強調假定該集合裡面物件都有唯一的名稱時﹐特別有用。它常與 distinctMembers 連用﹐來宣告列表中的成員都是獨立而且兩兩相異的。

3.3 OWL Lite 的屬性特色 OWL Lite Property Characteristics

There are special identifiers in OWL Lite that are used to provide information concerning properties and their values. The distinction between ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty is mentioned above in the property description.

inverseOf: One property may be stated to be the inverse of another property. If the property P1 is stated to be the inverse of the property P2, then if X is related to Y by the P2 property, then Y is related to X by the P1 property. For example, if hasChild is the inverse of hasParent and Deborah hasParent Louise, then a reasoner can deduce that Louise hasChild Deborah.
TransitiveProperty: Properties may be stated to be transitive. If a property is transitive, then if the pair (x,y) is an instance of the transitive property P, and the pair (y,z) is an instance of P, then the pair (x,z) is also an instance of P. For example, if ancestor is stated to be transitive, and if Sara is an ancestor of Louise (i.e., (Sara,Louise) is an instance of the property ancestor) and Louise is an ancestor of Deborah (i.e., (Louise,Deborah) is an instance of the property ancestor), then a reasoner can deduce that Sara is an ancestor of Deborah (i.e., (Sara,Deborah) is an instance of the property ancestor).

OWL Lite (and OWL DL) impose the side condition that transitive properties (and their superproperties) cannot have a maxCardinality 1 restriction. Without this side-condition, OWL Lite and OWL DL would become undecidable languages. See the property axiom section of the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax document for more information.

SymmetricProperty: Properties may be stated to be symmetric. If a property is symmetric, then if the pair (x,y) is an instance of the symmetric property P, then the pair (y,x) is also an instance of P. For example, friend may be stated to be a symmetric property. Then a reasoner that is given that Frank is a friend of Deborah can deduce that Deborah is a friend of Frank.

FunctionalProperty : Properties may be stated to have a unique value. If a property is a FunctionalProperty, then it has no more than one value for each individual (it may have no values for an individual). This characteristic has been referred to as having a unique property. FunctionalProperty is shorthand for stating that the property's minimum cardinality is zero and its maximum cardinality is 1. For example, hasPrimaryEmployer may be stated to be a FunctionalProperty. From this a reasoner may deduce that no individual may have more than one primary employer. This does not imply that every Person must have at least one primary employer however.
InverseFunctionalProperty: Properties may be stated to be inverse functional. If a property is inverse functional then the inverse of the property is functional. Thus the inverse of the property has at most one value for each individual. This characteristic has also been referred to as an unambiguous property. For example, hasUSSocialSecurityNumber (a unique identifier for United States residents) may be stated to be inverse functional (or unambiguous). The inverse of this property (which may be referred to as isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor) has at most one value for any individual in the class of social security numbers. Thus any one person's social security number is the only value for their isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor property. From this a reasoner can deduce that no two different individual instances of Person have the identical US Social Security Number. Also, a reasoner can deduce that if two instances of Person have the same social security number, then those two instances refer to the same individual.

3.3 OWL Lite 的屬性特色

在 OWL Lite 中有一些特殊的識別符﹙identifiers﹚﹐用來提供與屬性和值有關的訊息。其中 ObjectProperty 和 DatatypeProperty 的區別已經上面的屬性描述裡提過了。

inverseOf (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_inverseOf)﹕一個屬性可以是另一個屬性的反屬性﹙inverse﹚。如果屬性 P1 被宣告為 P2 的反屬性﹐那麼如果 X 是以 P2 屬性與 Y 相關連﹐則 Y 也會以 P1 屬性與 X 相關連。例如﹕如果 hasChild 是 hasParent 的反屬性﹐而且 Deborah hasParent Louise﹐那麼推理程式就可以推論出 Louise hasChild Deborah。
TransitiveProperty (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_TransitiveProperty):屬性可以宣告為有遞移性﹙transitive﹚。如果一個屬性是有遞移性﹐那麼﹐如果﹙x,y﹚是遞移屬性 P 的一個實體﹐﹙y,z﹚也是屬性 P 的實體﹐那麼 ﹙x,z﹚也是屬性 P 的實體。例如﹐我們宣告祖先﹙ancestor﹚是一個有遞移性的屬性﹐如果 Sara 是 Louise 的祖先﹙也就是說﹙Sara,Louise﹚是屬性祖先的一個實體﹙例﹚﹚而 Louise 是 Deborah 的祖先﹙也就是說﹙Louise,Deborah﹚是屬性祖先的一個實體﹙例﹚﹚﹐那麼推理程式將可以推論出 Sara 是 Deborah 的祖先﹙也就是說﹙Sara,Deborah﹚是屬性祖先的一個實體﹙例﹚﹚。OWL Lite﹙和 OWL DL﹚有一個附加條件﹐那就是遞移屬性﹙還有它的父屬性﹚不能有值為1 的最大基數﹙maxCardinality﹚的限制。因為若是沒有這個附加條件﹐OWL Lite 和 OWL DL 就會失去它的可判斷性。要了解更多的資訊請參考OWL 語意與概念語法文件 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/)的屬性公設那一節。
SymmetricProperty (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_SymmetricProperty): 屬性可以宣告為對稱的﹙symmetric﹚。如果﹙x,y﹚是對稱屬性 P 的一個實體﹐那麼﹙y,x﹚也會是 P 的一個實體。例如﹐我們宣告朋友﹙friend﹚為一個對稱屬性﹐那麼當給定 Frank 是 Deborah 的朋友的時候﹐推理程式可以推論出 Deborah 是 Frank 的朋友。
FunctionalProperty (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_FunctionalProperty) : 屬性可以宣告為擁有唯一值的。如果一個屬性是函數型屬性﹙FunctionalProperty﹚﹐那麼每一個個體只會有一個值﹙對某些個體也可能沒有﹚。這個特徵已經被視為具有唯一屬性﹙unique property﹚的參考。FunctionalProperty 可以作為是宣告一個屬性最小基數﹙cardinality﹚為 0 最大基數為 1 的簡寫。例如﹐我們宣告 hasPrimaryEmployer 是一個函數型屬性﹐那麼推理程式將可以推論出沒有一個個體會擁有超過 1 個大老闆﹙primary employer﹚。不過這並不表示每一個人都至少要有一個大老闆。
InverseFunctionalProperty (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_InverseFunctionalProperty):屬性可以宣告為反函數型的。反函數型屬性的反屬性就是函數型屬性﹐因此﹐每一個個體的反屬性最多只有一個值。這個特徵使得它又被稱為單值屬性﹙unambiguous porperty﹚。例如﹐我們可以宣告 hasUSSocialSecurityNumber ﹙美國居民獨一無二的識別碼﹚為一個反函數型屬性。則對於社會安全號碼﹙social security numbers﹚這個類別裡的任何個體這個屬性的反屬性﹙也許可記作 isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor﹚最多只有一個值。因此﹐任何一個人的社會安全號碼對於 isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor 屬性來說都是唯一的。如此一來﹐推理程式就可以推論出沒有任何兩個 Person 類別的個別實體會有相同的社會安全號碼。此外﹐它也會推論出如果兩個 Person 類別的實體有相同的社會安全號碼﹐那麼這兩個實體指的是同一個個體。

3.4 OWL Lite Property Restrictions

OWL Lite allows restrictions to be placed on how properties can be used by instances of a class. These type (and the cardinality restrictions in the next subsection) are used within the context of an owl:Restriction. The owl:onProperty element indicates the restricted property. The following two restrictions limit which values can be used while the next section's restrictions limit how many values can be used.

allValuesFrom: The restriction allValuesFrom is stated on a property with respect to a class. It means that this property on this particular class has a local range restriction associated with it. Thus if an instance of the class is related by the property to a second individual, then the second individual can be inferred to be an instance of the local range restriction class. For example, the class Person may have a property called hasDaughter restricted to have allValuesFrom the class Woman. This means that if an individual person Louise is related by the property hasDaughter to the individual Deborah, then from this a reasoner can deduce that Deborah is an instance of the class Woman. This restriction allows the property hasDaughter to be used with other classes, such as the class Cat, and have an appropriate value restriction associated with the use of the property on that class. In this case, hasDaughter would have the local range restriction of Cat when associated with the class Cat and would have the local range restriction Person when associated with the class Person. Note that a reasoner can not deduce from an allValuesFrom restriction alone that there actually is at least one value for the property.

someValuesFrom: The restriction someValuesFrom is stated on a property with respect to a class. A particular class may have a restriction on a property that at least one value for that property is of a certain type. For example, the class SemanticWebPaper may have a someValuesFrom restriction on the hasKeyword property that states that some value for the hasKeyword property should be an instance of the class SemanticWebTopic. This allows for the option of having multiple keywords and as long as one or more is an instance of the class SemanticWebTopic, then the paper would be consistent with the someValuesFrom restriction. Unlike allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom does not restrict all the values of the property to be instances of the same class. If myPaper is an instance of the SemanticWebPaper class, then myPaper is related by the hasKeyword property to at least one instance of the SemanticWebTopic class. Note that a reasoner can not deduce (as it could with allValuesFrom restrictions) that all values of hasKeyword are instances of the SemanticWebTopic class

3.4 OWL Lite 的屬性約束

OWL Lite 允許在屬性上加入限制﹐使它能夠在一些類別的實體上被運用。這些類型﹙包括下一節的基數約束﹚都在owl:Restriction (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#PropertyRestrictions)中使用﹐透過owl:onProperty (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#PropertyRestrictions)元素來指定受到限制的屬性。下面兩種約束用來限制什麼樣的數值可以使用﹐而下一節則是限制可以取用多少個數值。

allValuesFrom (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_allValuesFrom)：約束allValuesFrom是對屬性適用於某個類別時宣告的。它表示這個用在某個特定類別的屬性將會有一個局部的值域約束﹙local range restriction﹚相對應﹐因此﹐如果一個類別的實體因著某個屬性與第二個個體相關﹐那們我可以推斷這個第二個個體也是一個受到局部值域約束的類別的實體。例如﹐類別Person有一個屬性叫做hasDaughter﹐它有一個allValueFrom為類別Woman的約束。這表示碩士個體Louiseu與Deborah有hasDaughter的關係﹙譯者註﹐即表示Louiseu有個女兒Deborah﹚﹐那麼如此一來﹐推理程式就可以推斷出Deborah是類別Woman的一個實體。這個約束允許hasDaughter屬性再加上一些恰當的約束之後讓其他的類別也可以使用﹐例如類別Cat﹙貓﹚。如此一來﹐假如屬性hasDaughter用在類別Cat﹐其局部值域約束為類別Cat﹔假如用在類別Person﹐它的局部值域約束類別就是Person。注意﹐推理程式並不能從屬性的allValueFrom推論出屬性是否至少有一個值。
someValuesFrom (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_someValuesFrom):約束someValuesFrom是對屬性適用於某個類別時宣告的。某些特定的類別可能需要對它的屬性作約束﹐限定這個屬性至少有一個值是屬於某種類型的。例如﹐類別SemanticWebPaper﹙語意網論文﹚在hasKeyword這個屬性上有someValueFrom的約束﹐即它必須宣告hasKeyword屬性必須是類別SemanticWebTopic﹙語意網主題﹚的實體。在考慮到多個keyword的情形下﹐只要一個或多個是類別SemanticWebTopic的實體﹐那麼論文就會符合someValueFrom這個約束了。與allValueFrom不同﹐someValueFrom並沒有限定屬性所有的值都要是同一個類別的實體。如果myPaper是類別SemanticWebPaper的一個實體﹐那麼myPaper至少和類別SemanticWebTopic的一個實體存在著hasKeyword屬性的關係。注意﹐推理程式無法推斷是否所有hasKeyword的值都是類別SemanticWebTopic的實體。

3.5 OWL Lite Restricted Cardinality

OWL Lite includes a limited form of cardinality restrictions. OWL (and OWL Lite) cardinality restrictions are referred to as local restrictions, since they are stated on properties with respect to a particular class. That is, the restrictions constrain the cardinality of that property on instances of that class. OWL Lite cardinality restrictions are limited because they only allow statements concerning cardinalities of value 0 or 1 (they do not allow arbitrary values for cardinality, as is the case in OWL DL and OWL Full).

minCardinality: Cardinality is stated on a property with respect to a particular class. If a minCardinality of 1 is stated on a property with respect to a class, then any instance of that class will be related to at least one individual by that property. This restriction is another way of saying that the property is required to have a value for all instances of the class. For example, the class Person would not have any minimum cardinality restrictions stated on a hasOffspring property since not all persons have offspring. The class Parent, however would have a minimum cardinality of 1 on the hasOffspring property. If a reasoner knows that Louise is a Person, then nothing can be deduced about a minimum cardinality for her hasOffspring property. Once it is discovered that Louise is an instance of Parent, then a reasoner can deduce that Louise is related to at least one individual by the hasOffspring property. From this information alone, a reasoner can not deduce any maximum number of offspring for individual instances of the class parent. In OWL Lite the only minimum cardinalities allowed are 0 or 1. A minimum cardinality of zero on a property just states (in the absence of any more specific information) that the property is optional with respect to a class. For example, the property hasOffspring may have a minimum cardinality of zero on the class Person (while it is stated to have the more specific information of minimum cardinality of one on the class Parent).

maxCardinality: Cardinality is stated on a property with respect to a particular class. If a maxCardinality of 1 is stated on a property with respect to a class, then any instance of that class will be related to at most one individual by that property. A maxCardinality 1 restriction is sometimes called a functional or unique property. For example, the property hasRegisteredVotingState on the class UnitedStatesCitizens may have a maximum cardinality of one (because people are only allowed to vote in only one state). From this a reasoner can deduce that individual instances of the class USCitizens may not be related to two or more distinct individuals through the hasRegisteredVotingState property. From a maximum cardinality one restriction alone, a reasoner can not deduce a minimum cardinality of 1. It may be useful to state that certain classes have no values for a particular property. For example, instances of the class UnmarriedPerson should not be related to any individuals by the property hasSpouse. This situation is represented by a maximum cardinality of zero on the hasSpouse property on the class UnmarriedPerson.

cardinality: Cardinality is provided as a convenience when it is useful to state that a property on a class has both minCardinality 0 and maxCardinality 0 or both minCardinality 1 and maxCardinality 1. For example, the class Person has exactly one value for the property hasBirthMother. From this a reasoner can deduce that no two distinct individual instances of the class Mother may be values for the hasBirthMother property of the same person.

Alternate namings for these restricted forms of cardinality were discussed. Current recommendations are to include any such names in a front end system. More on this topic is available on the publicly available webont mail archives with the most relevant message at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0063.html.

3.5 OWL Lite 的基數限制

OWL Lite 包括基數約束﹐它也稱作局部約束﹐因為它們是宣告在某些特定類別的屬性上面﹐也就是說這個約束限制了該類別實體的屬性基數。OWL 基數約束在使用上是有限制的﹐因為它只允許0﹐1兩個值﹙它們不像 OWL DL 和 OWL Full 允許任何值。﹚

minCardinality (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_minCardinality): 基數是宣告在某些特定類別的屬性上。如果我們宣告某個類別的相關屬性的 minCardinality 為 1﹐那麼這個類別的任何一個實體都是至少與擁有該屬性的一個個體相關。這是要求某個類別所有實體在某種屬性上一定要存在一個值的另外一種表示方法。例如﹐類別 Person 在 hasOffspring﹙有後代﹚上不會有任何最小基數的約束﹐因為不是所有的人都會有後代。而類別 Parent 就會有最小基數為 1 的 hasOffspring 屬性。如果推理程式知道 Louise 是類別 Person 的實體﹐那麼它無法推斷出有關 hasOffspring 最小基數的訊息﹐但是一但它發現 Louise 是 Parent 的一個實體﹐那麼推理程式就可以推論出 Louise 至少與一個擁有 hasOffspring 屬性的個體有關。但是只有這些訊息﹐推理程式並不能推論出後代數目的最大值。在 OWL Lite 最小基數的直指允許為 0﹐1。﹙在沒有更詳細的說明下﹚0 表示對某個類別來說﹐這個屬性是可選擇的﹙optional﹚﹐例如﹐類別 Person 在屬性 hasOffspring 的最小基數值可以為 0﹐﹙但是對類別 Parent ﹐宣告最小基數為 1 則可以表達更特定的訊息。﹚

maxCardinality (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_maxCardinality)：基數是宣告在某些特定類別的屬性上。如果我們宣告某個類別的相關屬性的 maxCardinality 為 1﹐那麼這個類別的任何一個實體最多與一個有該屬性的個體相關。maxCardinality 等於 1 的約束通常又稱為函數型屬性或是唯一屬性。例如﹐在類別 UnitedStatesCitizens﹙美國公民﹚上的屬性 hasRegisteredVotingState﹙有登記投票州﹚應該要有最大基數值為 1﹙因為每個人只被允許在一個州投票﹚。如此一來﹐推理程式就可以推論出類別 UnitedStatesCitizens 在 hasRegisteredVotingState 上不會與兩個以上的個體相關。單單從約束的最大基數來看﹐推理程式並不能推論出最小基數為 1 。對於要宣告某些類別在某些屬性上沒有值﹐它是很方便的。例如﹐類別 UnmarriedPerson 的實體﹐應該不會有和任何有 hasSpouse﹙有配偶﹚屬性的個體相關聯。在這種狀況下﹐我們就可以用最大基數為 0 來表示 hasSpouse 屬性與類別 UnMarriedPerson 的狀態。

cardinality (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_cardinality)：基數是用來方便地表示屬性適用於一個類別的约束“minCardinality”和“maxCardinality” 同時為 0 或者“minCardinality” 和“maxCardinality” 同時為1。例如，類別 Person 的屬性hasBirthMother（親生母親）只有一個值。這樣﹐推理程式可以堆斷出屬於類別 Mother 的兩個實體不能同時是 hasBirthMother 的屬性值。

Alternate namings for these restricted forms of cardinality were discussed. Current recommendations are to include any such names in a front end system. More on this topic is available on the publicly available webont mail archives with the most relevant message at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0063.html.
與這些基數的限制形式有關的其他命名方式曾被討論過﹐目前的建議書多是要包含在系統前端使用的名字。關於這個主題﹐您可以在公開的 webont 論壇找到相關的訊息﹐其中最有關聯的是 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0063.html。

3.6 OWL Lite Class Intersection

OWL Lite contains an intersection constructor but limits its usage.

intersectionOf: OWL Lite allows intersections of named classes and restrictions. For example, the class EmployedPerson can be described as the intersectionOf Person and EmployedThings (which could be defined as things that have a minimum cardinality of 1 on the hasEmployer property). From this a reasoner may deduce that any particular EmployedPerson has at least one employer.

3.6 OWL Lite 類別的交集

OWL Lite 包含一個交集構詞﹙intersection constructor﹚﹐但是在使用上有所限制。

intersectionOf (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_intersectionOf)：OWL Lite 允許具名類別與約束有交集存在﹐例如﹐類別 EmployedPerson 可以被錨聖成 intersectionOf Persion 和 EmployedThings﹙其中 EmployedThings 可以被定義為在 hasEmployer 屬性上的最小基數為 1﹚。如此一來﹐推理程式便可以推論出任何一個特定的 EmployedPerson 至少有一個雇主﹙employer﹚。

3.7 OWL 資料型態

OWL uses the RDF mechanisms for data values. See the OWL Guide section on datatypes for a more detailed description of the built-in OWL datatypes taken largely from the XML Schema datatypes.

3.7 OWL 資料型態

關於數值資料﹐ OWL 使用 RDF 的機制。OWL 大部分內建的數值資料類型都來自 XML Schema。進一步的資訊請參考 OWL 指南關於數值資料型 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#Datatypes1)那一節。

3.8 OWL Lite Header Information

OWL Lite supports notions of ontology inclusion and relationships and attaching information to ontologies. See the OWL Reference for details and the OWL Guide for examples.

3.8 OWL Lite 表頭信息

OWL Lite 支援本體融合﹙ontology inclusion﹚﹐關聯和元資料描述等概念。詳細資料情參考OWL 參考 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/)，範例可參考OWL 指南 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/)。

3.9 OWL Lite Annotation Properties

OWL Lite allows annotations on classes, properties, individuals and ontology headers. The use of these annotations is subject to certain restrictions. See the section on Annotations in the OWL Reference for details.

3.9 OWL Lite 的註解屬性

OWL Lite 允許對類別﹐屬性﹐個體與本體表頭訊息作註解。這些註解的使用也有些限制。詳細資料請參考OWL參考關於註解 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations) 。

3.10 OWL Lite 的版本 OWL Lite Versioning

RDF already has a small vocabulary for describing versioning information. OWL significantly extends this vocabulary. See the OWL Reference for further details.
RDF 已經有一個小的詞彙表﹐ OWL 則大量地擴充這份詞彙表。詳細資料請參閱OWL 參考 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Header)。

4. Incremental Language Description of OWL DL and OWL Full

Both OWL DL and OWL Full use the same vocabulary although OWL DL is subject to some restrictions. Roughly, OWL DL requires type separation (a class can not also be an individual or property, a property can not also be an individual or class). This implies that restrictions cannot be applied to the language elements of OWL itself (something that is allowed in OWL Full). Furthermore, OWL DL requires that properties are either ObjectProperties or DatatypeProperties: DatatypeProperties are relations between instances of classes and RDF literals and XML Schema datatypes, while ObjectProperties are relations between instances of two classes. The OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax document explains the distinctions and limitations. We describe the OWL DL and OWL Full vocabulary that extends the constructions of OWL Lite below.

oneOf: (enumerated classes): Classes can be described by enumeration of the individuals that make up the class. The members of the class are exactly the set of enumerated individuals; no more, no less. For example, the class of daysOfTheWeek can be described by simply enumerating the individuals Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. From this a reasoner can deduce the maximum cardinality (7) of any property that has daysOfTheWeek as its allValuesFrom restriction.
hasValue: (property values): A property can be required to have a certain individual as a value (also sometimes referred to as property values). For example, instances of the class of dutchCitizens can be characterized as those people that have theNetherlands as a value of their nationality. (The nationality value, theNetherlands, is an instance of the class of Nationalities).
unionOf, complementOf, intersectionOf (Boolean combinations): OWL DL and OWL Full allow arbitrary Boolean combinations of classes and restrictions: unionOf, complementOf, and intersectionOf. For example, using unionOf, we can state that a class contains things that are either USCitizens or DutchCitizens. Using complementOf, we could state that children are not SeniorCitizens. (i.e. the class Children is a subclass of the complement of SeniorCitizens). Citizenship of the European Union could be described as the union of the citizenship of all member states.
minCardinality, maxCardinality, cardinality (full cardinality): While in OWL Lite, cardinalities are restricted to at least, at most or exactly 1 or 0, full OWL allows cardinality statements for arbitrary non-negative integers. For example the class of DINKs ("Dual Income, No Kids") would restrict the cardinality of the property hasIncome to a minimum cardinality of two (while the property hasChild would have to be restricted to cardinality 0).
complex classes : In many constructs, OWL Lite restricts the syntax to single class names (e.g. in subClassOf or equivalentClass statements). OWL Full extends this restriction to allow arbitrarily complex class descriptions, consisting of enumerated classes, property restrictions, and Boolean combinations. Also, OWL Full allows classes to be used as instances (and OWL DL and OWL Lite do not). For more on this topic, see the "Design for Use" section of the Guide document.

4. OWL DL 與 OWL Full 的附加語言描述

OWL DL 和 OWL Full 使用相同的詞彙集，不過在 OWL DL 則有些限制。粗略地說，OWL DL 要求型態分離（type separation，一個類別不能同時是一個個體或是屬性，一個屬性也不能同時是個體或類別）。這意味著，約束不能應用於 OWL 語言元素自己本身（OWL Full 是允許的）。此外，OWL DL 要求屬性得是物件屬性（ObjectProperties）或是資料型別屬性（DatatypeProperties）：資料型別屬性是類別的實體和 RDF 語法與 RDF Schema 資料型別的關係，而物件屬性是兩個類別的實體之間的關係。OWL 語意與概念語法 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/)文件解釋了這些區別和限制。下面我們介紹不包含在 OWL Lite 內的 OWL DL 與 OWL Full 的延伸構詞。

oneOf (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_oneOf)（列舉類別）：類別可以以列舉出所有組成個體的方式來描述。類別的成員剛剛好是列舉出來的個體集合，不多也不少。例如，類別 daysOfTheWeek（一星期的日子）可以以列舉出 Sunday，Monday，Tuesday，Wednesday，Thursday，Friday 和 Saturday 這些個體來描述。據此推理程式可以推論出任何以 daysOfTheWeek 為它的 allValuesFrom 約束的屬性，最大的基數（maximum cardinality）為 7。
hasValue (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_hasValue)（數性值）：一個屬性可以被要求擁有一個特定的個體作為它的值（有時稱作屬性值，property values）。例如，類別 dutchCitizens（荷蘭公民）的實體可以被描述為那些 nationality（國籍）屬性的值是 theNetherlands 的人。（nationality 的值，theNetherlands，是類別 Nationalities（國籍）的一個實體）。
unionOf, complementOf, intersectionOf (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_unionOf) （布林組合）：OWL DL 和 OWL Full 允許類別和約束之間的任意布林組合：unionOf（聯集），complementOf（補集）和 intersectionOf（交集）。例如，利用 unionOf，我們能夠說明一個類別，它包含的事物中有 USCitizens（美國公民）和 DutchCitizens（荷蘭公民）。利用 complementOf，我們能夠說明 children（孩子）不是SeniorCitizens（成年公民）（也就是說，類別 Children 是類別 SeniorCitizens 補集的子類別）。歐盟的公民也可以描述為所有成員國公民的聯集。
disjointWith (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_disjointWith)（互斥）：類別可以宣告成彼此互斥。例如，我們可以宣告類別 Man（男人）和類別 Woman（女人）是互斥的，從互斥（disjointWith）的陳述中，推理程式可以推論出當一個實體同時是這兩個類別的實體，會產生矛盾，同樣地，如果 A 是類別 Man 的一個實體，那麼 A 一定不是類別 Woman 的實體。
minCardinality, maxCardinality, cardinality (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_cardinality) （完全基数）：在 OWL Lite 中，基數的值被限制在最小，或最大為 0 或 1，完全的 OWL 允許其取值為任意非負整數。例如，類別 DINKs（"Dual Income, No Kids"，雙份收入沒有小孩的夫婦，又稱為頂客族）將限制 hasIncome 屬性的最小基數為 2，同時限制 hasChild 的基數為 0。
complex classes（複合類別）：OWL Lite 中，很多構詞都在語法上限制為單一的類別名稱（例如，在 subClassOf 或 equivalentClass 的敘述）。OWL Full 則放寬這個約束允許任意複合類別的組合，包括列舉類別，屬性約束和布林組合。OWL Full 也允許類別作為實體使用。（OWL DL 和 OWL Lite 不可以）。更多的訊息請參考 OWL 指南文件的“Design for Use“部分。

5. Summary

This document provides an overview of the Web Ontology Language by providing a brief introduction to why one might need a Web ontology language and how OWL fits in with related W3C languages. It also provides a brief description of the three OWL sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full along with a feature synopsis for each of the languages. This document is an update to the Feature Synopsis Document. It provides simple descriptions of the constructs along with simple examples. It references the OWL reference document, the OWL Guide, and the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax document for more details. Previous versions ( December 15, 2003, September 5, 2003, August 18, 2003, July 30, 2003, May 1, 2003, March 20, 2003, January 2, 2003, July 29, 2002, July 8, 2002, June 23, 2002, May 26, 2002, and May 15, 2002) of this document provide the historical view of the evolution of OWL Lite and the issues discussed in its evolution.

5. 總結

這份文件是Web 本體語言的概述，簡要的說明為什麼需要 Web 本體語言以及如何和其他相關的 W3C 語言配合。此外，也簡要的介紹了 OWL 的三個子語言：OWL Lite，OWL DL 和 OWL Full，包括每個子語言的特徵概要。本文是特徵概要文件的更新版本，提供每個構詞的簡單描述與範例。它參考的文件有 OWL 參考 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/)，OWL 指南 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/) 和 OWL 語義與概念語法 (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/)。本文的先前版本有（December 15, 2003 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-features-20031215/), September 5, 2003 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverviewSep52003.htm), August 18, 2003 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-features-20030818/), July 30, 2003 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverviewJuly302003.htm), May 1, 2003 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverviewMay12003.htm), March 20, 2003 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsisMarch202003.htm), January 2, 2003 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsisJan22003.htm), July 29, 2002 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsisJuly29.htm), July 8, 2002 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsisJuly8.htm), June 23, 2002 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsisJune23.htm), May 26, 2002 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/complianceMay262002.html), and May 15, 2002 (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/complianceMay152002.html)），這些文件保存了 OWL Lite 的演化歷程以及在這個過程中討論到的重要議題。

參考資料

[OWL Guide]
OWL Web Ontology Language Guide, Michael K. Smith, Chris Welty, and Deborah L. McGuinness, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ .
[OWL Reference]
OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, Mike Dean and Guus Schreiber, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/ .
[OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics]
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Pat Hayes, and Ian Horrocks, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ .
[OWL Test]
OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases, Jeremy J. Carroll and Jos De Roo, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/ .
[OWL Requirements]
OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements, Jeff Heflin, Editor, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webont-req-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/ .
[OWL Issues]
Web Ontology Issue Status. Michael K. Smith, ed. 1 November 2003.
[DAML+OIL Reference]
DAML+OIL Reference Description . Dan Connolly, Frank van Harmelen, Ian Horrocks, Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Lynn Andrea Stein. W3C Note 18 December 2001.
[XML]
Extensible Markup Language (XML).
[XML Schema]
XML Schema .
[XML-SCHEMA2]
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes - W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 2 May 2001.
[RDF/XML Syntax]
RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised), Dave Beckett, Editor, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ .
[RDF Concepts]
Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax, Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ .
[RDF Schema]
RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, Dan Brickley and R. V. Guha, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ .
[RDF Semantics]
RDF Semantics, Patrick Hayes, Editor, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ .
[Description Logics]
The Description Logic Handbook. Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, Peter Patel-Schneider, editors. Cambridge University Press, 2003; and Description Logics Home Page.

致謝

本文件是Web本體語言工作小组 (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/)充分討論之後所整理產出的成果﹐參與的人員有﹕Yasser alSafadi, Jean-François Baget, James Barnette, Sean Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Frederik Brysse, Stephen Buswell, Jeremy Carroll, Dan Connolly, Peter Crowther, Jonathan Dale, Jos De Roo, David De Roure, Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman, Jérôme Euzenat, Tim Finin, Nicholas Gibbins, Sandro Hawke, Patrick Hayes, Jeff Heflin, Ziv Hellman, James Hendler, Bernard Horan, Masahiro Hori, Ian Horrocks, Jane Hunter, Francesco Iannuzzelli, Rüdiger Klein, Natasha Kravtsova, Ora Lassila, Massimo Marchiori, Deborah McGuinness, Enrico Motta, Leo Obrst, Mehrdad Omidvari, Martin Pike, Marwan Sabbouh, Guus Schreiber, Noboru Shimizu, Michael Sintek, Michael K. Smith, John Stanton, Lynn Andrea Stein, Herman ter Horst, David Trastour, Frank van Harmelen, Bernard Vatant, Raphael Volz, Evan Wallace, Christopher Welty, Charles White, and John Yanosy.

Change Log Since Last Call Release

Added owl:Nothing to OWL Lite.
Added pointer to last call document under title
Changed all links to owl-absyn to owl-semantics
Incorporated Lee Lacy's grammatical comments from public-webont-comments dated April 21, 2003.
Incorporated Lee Lacy's other comments: annotation properties, version properties, and other missing tags in 2.2 (which got reorganised as a result)
changed hasOffSpring example to hasDaughter (request of Morten Frederiksen)
incorporated all Lasilla's comment, including replacing "machine readability" by "machine interpretability" and various typo's.
Added sentence on lower complexity class of OWL Lite, as proposed by Jim Hendler
Added first sentence to section 1, after Sandro Hawke's comment
Restored link to style file
Added link to test document and May 1 version
Added references section
Changed back to relative references to sections
Changed links to http://www.w3.org/TR/xx from previous versions with updates later to ...TR/2003/CR-xx-20030818/

最後公告（Last Call）發佈之後的修改紀錄

在 OWL Lite 中新增 wol:Nothing。
在標題下新增一個最後公告文件的連結。
所有指向 owl-absyn 修改為指向 owl-semantics。
採納 Lee Lacy 於 2003 年 4 月 21 日在 public-webont-comments 提出來有關文法上得建議。
採納 Lee Lacy 的其他建議：註解屬性，版本屬性，和其他 2.2 節中遺漏的標籤。
修改 hasOffSpring 範例成 hasDaughter（應 Morten Frederiksen 要求）。
採用 Lasilla 的所有意見，包括用 "machine interpretability" 替代 "machine readability" 和其他的書寫錯誤。
依照 Jim Hendle 建議，新增較低複雜度的句子。
新增第一節第一句話（Sandro Hawke 的建議）。
恢復樣式表的連結。
在策試文件與 5 月 1 日的版本新增連結。
新增參考文獻小節。
修改回到各小節的相對連結。
將前一版本的連結之 http://www.w3.org/TR/xx 改為 ...TR/2003/CR-xx-20030818/

Change Log Since Candidate Recommendation

Added Change Log since candidate recommendation.
Deleted Control Ms at the end of all lines.
Incorporated Jeff Rafter's public webont comments.
Updated Status, Document links, date of publication, etc. according to PR email from chair.

成為候選推薦標準（Candidate Recommendation）後的修改記錄

新增審定為建議推薦規格後的修改記錄。
刪除各行結尾的控制碼。
加入 Jeff Rafter 的公開 webont 建議 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Sep/0000.html)。
更新文件狀態﹐文件連結﹐出版日期等等。根據主席的 PR 的郵件 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0108.html)。

Change Log Since Proposed Recommendation

Two broken links fixed - W3C icon was referenced by referring to local W3c expansion src="OWL Web Ontology Language Overview_files/ as was gif for author. Added full expansion to W3C icon (http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home) and email gif (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/Email.Deborah.McGuinness.gif).
Removed control Ms at the end of every line introduced with new version transfer.
Added links to previous version in December 2003.
Updated document taking Lee Lacy's comments dated January 12, 2004. (Comments mostly small editorial changes, cell spacing change of 30 to 27 in table, ...)
Included Benjamin Nowack's editorial comments.
Updated Reference format.

成為建議推薦標準（Proposed Recommendation）後的修改記錄

修正兩個錯誤連結 - W3C 圖示所參照的位置 src="OWL Web Ontology Language Overview_files/ 和作者相同。增加完整的 W3C 圖示連結﹙http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home﹚與 emil gif 圖檔連結(http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/Email.Deborah.McGuinness.gif)。
刪除由新版本轉換器引入的每行結尾的控制符號。
新增 2003 年 11 月以前版本的連結。
採用 Lee Lacy 2004 年 1 月 12 日的建議更新文件﹙這些意見主要是一些表格中的欄位間距調整﹐從 30 調到 27﹚。
新增 Benjamin Nowack 的編輯意見。
更新參考文獻格式。

取自"http://zh.transwiki.org/wiki/index.php/OWL_Web%E6%9C%AC%E9%AB%94%E8%AA%9E%E8%A8%80%E6%A6%82%E8%BF%B0_%E6%8E%A8%E8%96%A6%E6%A8%99%E6%BA%96"

Views

个人工具

用户登录

导航

搜索

工具