W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2013

Re: SPIN prospects

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:47:41 +0000
Message-ID: <5108DE2D.4070506@gmail.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
I can't speak for W3C, nor for the RIF working group.

Speaking purely personally I'd underline what it says in [2] "the RIF 
Working Group is in a low-activity state". I don't see enough RIF take 
up to have very high hopes of W3C doing more rules work in the near 
future but who knows, maybe I'll be surprised.

Personally I make heavy use of SPARQL as it is, including templating 
(both syntactic and injecting bindings into a query execution), quite 
happily without the need for SPIN. When I store SPARQL queries embedded 
in RDF I find a simpler embedding works just fine.

Dave

On 30/01/13 03:45, Paul Tyson wrote:
> Does anyone know if the SPIN submission [1] is likely to get any further
> attention and possibly move onto a standards track?
>
> The W3 acknowledgement [2] indicated it might be taken up by the RIF
> working group.
>
> Before I recently found SPIN, I was about to implement some of
> capabilities independently, since my use of SPARQL requires templating,
> constraint definition, API documentation, and rule interoperability.
> Quite by accident I saw a reference to SPIN and realized it would meet
> many of my needs. I'm wondering how others have gotten very far with
> SPARQL without using something like SPIN, and if the further development
> of SPIN towards a W3C recommendation would advance the use of SPARQL.
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
> [1] SPARQL Inferencing Notation, http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/02/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/02/Comment/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 08:48:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:53 GMT