Re: Pure Prolog action item completed

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.

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.


	--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 Monday, 10 April 2006 21:20:07 UTC