语义网络相关

语义网络在设计上的挑战是：
The challenge for the design of the Semantic Web is not to make a web infrastructure that is as smart as possible; it is to make an infrastructure that is most appropriate to the job of integrating information on the Web.

语义网让正确的数据在正确的位置，使得智能应用能够正确地工作。
The Semantic Web doesn’t make data smart because smart data isn’t what the Semantic Web needs. The Semantic Web just needs to get the right data to the right place so the smart applications can do their work.

语义网的主要思想是在数据层面支撑分布式Web。
The main idea of the Semantic Web is to support a distributed Web at the level of the data rather than at the level of the presentation. Instead of having one webpage point to another, one data item can point to another, using global references called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).

AAA标语：任何人可以在任何话题下讨论任何事。
The Web is the ultimate example of the warning caveat emptor (“Let the buyer beware”). This feature of the Web is so instrumental in its character that we give it a name: the AAA Slogan:“Anyone can say Anything about Any topic.”

AAA标语分别在Web of document和Semantic Web中如何体现？
In a web of documents, the AAA slogan means that anyone can write a page saying whatever they please, and publish it to the Web infrastructure. In the case of the Semantic Web, it means that our data infrastructure has to allow any individual to express a piece of data about some entity in a way that can be combined with information from other sources.

语义网的非唯一性假设：
In the absence of such an agreement, different web authors will select different URIs for the same real-world resource. Brown’s Xena is IAU’s UB313. When information from these different sources is brought together in the distributed network of data, the Web infrastructure has no way of knowing that these need to be treated as the same entity. The flip side of this is that we cannot assume that just because two URIs are distinct, they refer to distinct resources. This feature of the Semantic Web is called the Nonunique Naming Assumption; that is, we have to assume (until told otherwise) that some Web resource might be referred to using different names by different people.

web的开放世界假设：
In general, this aspect of a Web has a subtle but profound impact on how we draw conclusions from the infromation we have. It forces us to consider the Web as an Open World and to treat it using the Open World Assumption. An open world in this sense is one in which we must assume at any time that new information could come to light, and we may draw no conclusions that rely on assuming that the information available at any one point is all the information available.

网络效应：
The network effect——The property of a web that makes it grow organically. The value of joining in increases with the number of people who have joined, resulting in a virtuous cycle of participation.

关于人类交流：
Human communication, as a goal for modeling, allows it to play a role in the ongoing collection of human knowledge. The levels of communication can be quite sophisticated, including the collection of information used to interpret other information. In this sense, human communication is the fundamental requirement for building a Semantic Web. It allows people to contribute to a growing body of knowledge and then draw from it. But communication is not enough; to empower a web of human knowledge, the information in a model needs to be organizaed in such a way that it can be useful to a wide range of consumers.

语义网中的类层次：
The Semantic Web standards also use this idea of class hierarchy for representing commonality and variability. Since the Semantic Web, unlike OOP, is not focused on software representation, classes are not defined in terms of behaviors of functions. But the opinion of classes and subclasses remains, and it plays much the same role. High-level classes represent commonality among a large variety of entities, whereas lower-level classes represent commonality among a small, specific set of things.

语义网分层：

图中c由a和b合并得到，关于冥王星的符号表示，给出了两个有分歧的意见，这种观点的不一致问题该如何处理呢？
Detailed answers to questions like these are exactly the reason why we need to publish models on the Semantic Web. When two (or more!) viewpoints come together in a web of knowledge, there will typically be overlap, disagreement, and confusion before there is synergy, cooperation, and collaboration. If the infrastructure of the Web is to help us to find out way through the wild stage of information sharing, an informal notion of how things fit together, or should fit together, will not suffice. It is easy enough to say that we have an intuition that states there is something special about prefSymbol that makes it different from madeOf or signifies. If we can inform our infrastructure about this distinction in a sufficiently formal way, then it can, for instance, detect discrepancies of this sort and, in some cases, even resolve them.
This is the essence of modeling in the Semantic Web: providing an infrastructure where not only can anyone say anything about any topic but the infrastructure can help a community work through the resulting chaos. A model can provide a framework (like classes and subclasses) for representing and organizing commonality and variability of viewpoints when they are known. But in advance of such an organization, a model can provide a framework for describing what sorts of things we can say about something. We might not agree on the symbol for Pluto, but we can agree that it should have just one preferred symbol.

语义网络的建模语言表达能力由弱到强：
RDF——The Resource Description Framework. This is the basic framework that the rest of the Semantic Web is based on. RDF provides a mechanism for allowing anyone to make a basic statement about anything and layering these statements into a single model.

RDFS——The RDF Schema language. RDFS is a language with the expressivity to describe the basic notions of commonality and variability familiar from object languages and other class systems—namely classes, subclasses, and properties.

RDFS-Plus. RDFS-Plus is a subset of OWL that is more expressive than RDFS but without the complexity of OWL. There is no standard in progress for RDFS-Plus, but there is a growing awareness that something between RDFS and OWL could be industrially relevant. We have selected a particular subset of OWL functionality to present the capabilities of OWL incrementally. RDFS-Plus includes enough expressivity to describe how certain properties can be used and how they relate to one another. RDFS-Plus is expressive enough to show the utility of certain constructs beyond RDFS, but it lacks the complexity that makes OWL daunting to many beginning modelers. The issue of uniqueness of the preferred symbol is an example of the expressivity of RDFS-Plus.

OWL. OWL brings the expressivity of logic to the Semantic Web. It allows modelers to express detailed constraints between classes, entities, and properties. OWL was adopted as a recommendation by the W3C in 2003.

什么是语义，编程语言的语义和自然语言的语义？
When we speak of the “semantics” of a programming language, we usually refer to the mapping from the language syntax to some formalism that expresses the “meaning” of that language. For programming languages, this could be an abstract machine or a specification in some operational calculus. When we speak of “semantics” of natural language, we often refer to something about what it means to understand the utterance—how to go from the structured letters or sounds in a language to some kind of meaning behind them.
Perhaps the most primitive part of this notion of semantics is a representation of the linkage of a term in a statement to the entity in the world that the term refers to. This primitive notion of semantics—as referential semantics—is the one that motivates the Semantic Web.

为何引入URI？
The essence of the merge comes down to answering the question “When is a node in one graph the same node as a node in another graph?” In RDF, the issue is resolved through the use of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).
In the figures so far, we have labeled the nodes and edges in the graphs with simple names like Shakespeare or Wales. On the Semantic Web, this is not sufficient information to determine whether two nodes are really the same. Why not? Isn’t there just one thing in the universe that everyone agrees refers to as Shakespeare? When referring to agreement on the Web, never say, “everyone.” Somewhere, someone will refer not to the historical Shakespeare but to the title character of the feature film Shakespeare in Love, which bears very little resemblance to the historical figure. And “Shakespeare” is one of the more stable concepts to appear on the Web; consider the range of referents for a name like “Washington” or “Bordeaux.” To merge graphs in a Semantic Web setting, we have to be more specific: In what sense do we mean the word Shakespeare?

语义网术语，如subClassOf：
The Semantic Web infrastructure provides a formal and elegant specification of the meaning of the various terms like subClassOf. For example, the meaning of “B is a SubClassOf C” is “Every member of class B is also a member of class C.” This specification is based on the notion of inference. From the information “x is a member of B,” one can derive the new information, “x is a member of C.”

参考资料：
Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist——Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL