Re: instead of "Pure Prolog"

• From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:44:39 +0100
• To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
• CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <44604867.10100@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> When I originally proposed the requirement "RIF Core must cover Pure
> Prolog" [1] I thought the term "Pure Prolog" was better defined and
> somewhat less inclusive than it is [2].
> 
>>From WG discussions it seems like the right term is probably "Sequential
> Horn Clauses with Prolog Syntax", which I propose we abbreviate to
> "SH-Prolog" (SH for Sequential Horn, of course).   So the requirements is
> now
> 
>    RIF Core must cover SH-Prolog
> 
> or 
> 
>    RIF must cover SH-Prolog

Why is the "prolog syntax" bit significant here? Isn't that the business 
of the RIF translator rather than RIF?

In which case is your suggested requirement "RIF must cover SH"?

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 07:44:55 UTC