- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:47:41 +0000
- 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 UTC