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

Re: SPIN prospects

From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:54:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CABbsESc2Tky9Ra+Ei3_0h4gPtkzxieWrQ3Fj=3XNSoKYRh3mNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Paul & All,

There's an alternative direction for RIF and SPIN in [1,2].  The emphasis
is on readability and on repeatable operation when groups of rules are
moved around on the web.

</my 2 cents>                 -- Adrian

[1]  http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19

[2]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RDFQueryLangComparison1.agent



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> 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 16:54:59 GMT

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