Re: SPIN prospects

Hi Bernard,

I honestly don't know how many other people are using SPIN. The Data 
Quality Constraints Library [1] is a good public SPIN library for 
example. Another excellent example of the benefits of SPIN is the QUDT 
units ontology that comes with a SPIN library of unit transformation 
functions [2]. But I expect more adoption will follow as a result of the 
recent syntax simplification. Time to really get the community going!

My guess is that the publicly visible semantic web is only a fraction of 
the usage of this technology though. So there is a lot of dark matter - 
closed RDF projects within corporate networks. As most of TopQuadrant's 
customers are large enterprises, it's no surprise that adoption hasn't 
been very visible so far. On the other hand, most publicly visible other 
semantic models (esp OWL files) have probably been the result of 
research projects, while we hardly see industrial adoption of OWL (DL) 
either.

HTH
Holger

[1] http://semwebquality.org/ontologies/dq-constraints
[2] http://www.qudt.org/


On 1/31/2013 19:08, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hi Holger
>
> Very interesting discussion.
>
> I am interested in current adoption of SPIN in linked data 
> vocabularies/ontologies you would be aware of. Looking at the 300+ 
> vocabularies we have gathered so far in the LOV dataset, I have not 
> met unless I missed something any use of SPIN rules in any of them. 
> There are a few other vocabularies (quite confidential ones, actually) 
> relying on SPIN [1], but that's it. Any pointer welcome.
>
> Bernard
>
> [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_spin.html
>
> 2013/1/31 Holger Knublauch <holger@knublauch.com 
> <mailto:holger@knublauch.com>>
>
>     My guess whether people want to use SPIN or not depends on their
>     background. Clearly for many programmers it is better to take full
>     control without having another execution engine in the middle.
>     Also the complexity of the RDF syntax (which basically required
>     the use of a tool) was a show stopper for some. The latter problem
>     has been addressed though, see my email announcing the
>     Turtle-friendly simplified SPIN syntax [1].
>
>     However, not everyone is a programmer. SPIN addresses a different
>     problem than executing a bunch of SPARQL queries. It provides a
>     vocabulary for modeling and sharing the meaning and behavior of
>     semantic web resources. SPIN definitions can be published as
>     linked data, just like people share OWL restrictions to clarify
>     the meaning of OWL classes.
>
>     One benefit of using SPIN is that it defines standard properties
>     and URIs that can limit the proliferation of ad-hoc mechanisms
>     that would otherwise appear. Properties such as spin:rule and
>     spin:constraint clarify the role of a SPARQL query within a model.
>     Furthermore, the attachment of those rules and constraints to
>     classes can create much more maintainable query libraries than
>     plain lists of CONSTRUCTs. (As a side-bar, David: SPIN rules can
>     also be INSERT/DELETE commands). This object-oriented attachment
>     also allows execution engines to select which constraints and
>     rules need to be executed for a given context resource.
>
>     Another key feature of SPIN is the ability to define and share new
>     SPARQL functions without programming them in Java [5].
>     Furthermore, SPIN provides a simple yet powerful template
>     mechanism that allows anyone to make up their own domain-specific
>     modeling language, even including visual notations like SPINMap [6].
>
>     FWIW I have received confirmation from Kingsley that OpenLink
>     Software is adding some form of SPIN support to their products.
>     AllegroGraph already supports defining SPIN functions natively,
>     similar to stored procedures. Needless to say, TopQuadrant has a
>     whole technology stack built on top of SPIN [2], and some of this
>     is available via free tools [3] or open source APIs [4]. I hope
>     with the recent generalization of the SPIN syntax, more companies
>     will adopt it.
>
>     And yes, a full W3C process beyond the Member Submission is still
>     a possibility. If only those processes were not so time consuming!
>     Meanwhile I believe the market will decide, and SPIN is already a
>     de-facto standard in certain areas.
>
>     Regards,
>     Holger
>
>     [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jan/0147.html
>     [2]
>     http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2010/04/spin-technology-stack.html
>     [3] http://www.topquadrant.com/products/TB_Composer.html
>     [4] http://topbraid.org/spin/api/
>     [5]
>     http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2009/01/understanding-spin-functions.html
>     [6]
>     http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2011/04/spinmap-sparql-based-ontology-mapping.html
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Bernard Vatant
> *
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*****
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meet us at the SIIA Information Industry Summit 
> <http://www.siia.net/iis/2013> in NY, January 30-31
>
>
>