- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 18:46:33 -0400
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
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 depending on how we're handling phasing. In general, I'd like to see requirement titles stay short, using created terms like this if needed. Any verbose requirement title is likely to contain phrases we'll be saying and writing a lot. How does SH-Prolog differ from ISO Prolog (for which none of us have the spec), or SWI-Prolog or XSB, etc? Basically it's the subset without any built ins. I'm not exactly sure how to define that. That is, I don't know if this rule: foo :- halt. should be syntactically forbidden from SH-Prolog, or just have different semantics from those in real prologs. So there's more work to do in making a spec, some test cases, and maybe a validator/interpretor or something. This work that would be a starting point for people trying to really use RIF with real Prologs some day. -- Sandro (I think this e-mail completes actions 3 and 4.) [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Pure_Prolog
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:46:51 UTC