Re: instead of "Pure Prolog" (H-Prolog and SH-Prolog ?)

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>     
>>> >From WG discussions it seems like the right term is probably "Sequential
>>> Horn Clauses with Prolog Syntax", 
>>>       
>> What means for a clause to bew "sequential" or not to be "sequential"? A
>> clause is a piece of text, and text is always "sequential", isn't it?
>>
>> Are you not referring instead to how the clauses are processed? Eg to a
>> proof calculus or proof method?
>>     
>
> Yes, the naming is not perfect.  The word "Sequential" is in there to
> indicate that the order of clauses and the order of atoms within clauses
> are significant.  

Then, pleaser, let us call it "ordered Horn clauses" ("ordered clauses"
is alreadsy widespread in theorem proving and "ordered Horn lcauses"
already is in use in logic programming) and "ordered rule sets"!

Good names are not unimportant!

Francois

>  I'm not sure how significant they should be.
>
> 1.  Test case for answer ordering:
>
>     Input ruleset (in SH-Prolog)
>
>        x(a).
>        x(b).
>
>     Answers to query: x(X)
>
>        X = a;
>        X = b;
>        no
>
>     Answers must be in that order.
>   
Requiruing an order on answers might have dramatic negative effects in a
distributed environment like the Web where part of the computation can
be performed at different places. Requiring an ordewr on answers makes
it impossibnle to further process those result already obtained.
Instead, it requires a full synchronysations. I would strongly advice to
think of this...

Francois

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:30:02 UTC