- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:29:23 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
On 30/01/2013 08:47, Dave Reynolds wrote: > 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. FWIW, I do similarly, and haven't felt drawn to using SPIN. #g -- > 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 12:47:48 UTC