Well, this is not a "home-grown" definition, it is defined in the ISO Prolog standard. However, if the prevailing feeling is that this decreases the clarity, then I don't mind if my addition is removed from your contribution. -Igor Michael Kifer wrote: > Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>: > >>Michael Kifer wrote: >> >>>I have completed my action item >>>http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action13 >>>on Pure Prolog. >>>Please see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Pure_Prolog >>> >>> --michael >>> >> >>I have added my views on the distinction between Horn Clauses >>and pure Prolog to the end of same page. Hope this is OK, >>otherwise I can move it elsewhere. >> >>Regards, >>Igor >> > > > > Igor, > in your addition, you wrote: > > "I propose "pure Prolog" to stand for a computer language ..." > > I propose to not introduce new home-grown definitions and further confuse > things. There is already an array of dissimilar definitions of "Pure Prolog". > If you want to define something that doesn't already have a term > (and provided there is a need -- I am not even sure of that!) then introduce > a new term. Our goal is to be clear. What you are proposing is not going to > contribute to that. > > > --michael >Received on Monday, 10 April 2006 18:02:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:28 GMT