- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@knublauch.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:05:35 +1000
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 1/31/2013 13:38, Paul Tyson wrote: > Perhaps the W3C folks will take note and reconsider whether SPIN > should be tied to RIF future, or if it might have a useful place > alongside SPARQL (regardless of how RIF fares). My impression is that RIF isn't going anywhere and adding SPIN into the mix may bloat it further while making SPIN appear more complicating than it really is. But parts of SPIN can be readily attached to the SPARQL spec, especially the comparably small vocabulary to add new SPARQL functions (which we and our customers use a lot, because it makes SPARQL snippets reusable and thus leads to much more maintainable query libraries.) Unlike with SPIN rules, there also isn't much to debate about the semantics of those functions, avoiding potential fights with the logic camp. Holger
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 04:06:10 UTC