Multilingual RDF and OWL

  • Jeremy J. Carroll
  • Addison Phillips
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)


RDF uses the RFC3066 standard for language tags for literals in natural languages. The revision RFC3066bis includes productive use of language, country and script codes. These form an implicit ontology of natural languages for marking-up texts. Relating each language tag with classes of appropriately tagged literals allows this implicit ontology to be made explicit as an ontology in OWL in which every class in the ontology is a datarange. The treatment extends to XML Literals, which may have multiple embedded language tags. Further features of RFC3066bis such as the relationship with deprecated codes, language ranges and language tag fallback can be expressed in OWL. A small change to the RDF model theory is suggested to permit access to the language tag in the formal semantics, giving this ontology a precise formal meaning. Illustrative use cases refer to use of English, Japanese, Chinese and Klingon texts.


Abstract Syntax Default Rule Natural Language Text Semantic Extension Class Axiom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J. (eds.): RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Rec. (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heflin, J. (ed.): OWL Use Cases and Requirements W3C Rec. (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phillips, A., Davis, M.: Tags for Identifying Languages. draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00 (2005) (also known as RFC 3066bis)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Phillips, A., Davis, M.: Matching Language Identifiers. draft-ietf-ltru-matching-00 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carroll, J.J.: An Introduction to the Semantic Web: Considerations for building multilingual Semantic Web sites and applications. Multilingual Computing #68 15(7), 19–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes, P. (ed.): RDF Semantics. W3C Rec. (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I. (eds.): OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax. W3C Rec. (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carroll, J.J., de Roo, J. (eds.): OWL Test Cases, W3C Rec. (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sawicki, M., Suignard, M., Ishikawa, M., Dürst, M., Texin, T. (eds.): Ruby Annotation, W3C Rec. (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V. (eds.): RDF Vocabulary, W3C Rec. (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pan, J., Horrocks, I.: Extending Datatype Support in Web Ontology Reasoning. In: CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE 2002 pp. 1067-1081 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy J. Carroll
    • 1
  • Addison Phillips
    • 2
  1. 1.HP LabsBristolUK
  2. 2.Quest SoftwareIrvineUS

Personalised recommendations