Re: Pure Prolog action item completed

Michael Kifer wrote:
> Assuming that this is indeed stated in the ISO standard (like you, I don't
> have it), this doesn't affect my arguments:
> 
> 1. There are multiple definitions of this term, and the one in the standard
>    is not easily found on the Web. Instead, other definitions are more
>    easily found. Therefore, it is better to avoid this term.

I agree that it is better to avoid the term.
I have modified the wiki page to reflect this, but I can move it to another
page (eg, Pure_Prolog_1) to reduce the confusion, if needed.

> 
> The above was part of my original argument. Here is another one:
> 
> 2. The ISO definition differs from the definition of Horn clauses only in
>    that the order of clauses/predicates is said to be important.  The order
>    is important in many other contexts - for instance, when updates are
>    allowed in the rule body (e.g., transaction logic, reactive rules).
> 
>    Therefore, instead of muddying the waters with controversial
>    definitions, we would be better off adopting general rules for
>    specifying sublanguages that are of interest to us.
>    For instance, if we use semantic/syntactic taxonomies, which I was
>    talking about at F2F2 and in
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0021.html
>    then "order" could be one of the taxonomic features and "ISO-defined
>    Pure Prolog" would simply fall under both Horn and Ordered.

OK. If this simple ordering is covered elsewhere (and even more generally)
this satisfies our requirements.

-Igor

> 
> 
> 	--michael  
> 
> 
>>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 Tuesday, 11 April 2006 07:58:45 UTC