Re: instead of "Pure Prolog"

> 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"?

Because I want this to be a Requirement -- something we can test and
demonstrate and use.  I want test cases in files people can down-load.
I want to demonstrate RIF being used to convert rules between two
languages, and the two I use most are SH-Prolog and N3.  I should also
propose "RIF must cover N3", and I should propose a Horn subset of N3
for RIF Core.

(I hope you all will forgive my apparent egotism here in pushing for
SH-Prolog and N3 to be covered.  I'm just doing it to fill the vacuum.
At some point other people will start to do this with their languages of
choice and I can tone it down.  I think at this point the Working Group
is too far removed from trying to actually interchange rules.)

     -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 19:39:07 UTC