This is an archive of an inactive wiki and cannot be modified.

Standard RIF should be Prolog-like but not Prolog-compatible

Full Statement

Short description: one to three sentences

Prolog is a well-established and old rule-based programming language which has been and still is an inpiration for rule-based languages, especially Business Rule languages. Therefore, a Prolog-likeness would make RIF easier to grasp.

However, a Prolog-compatibility would be harmfull for RIF for several reasons:

1. Prolog is a full-fledged programming language with many idiosyncraties that RIF should be free of.

2. Achieving Prolog-compatibility cannot be done within one or two years.

3. Prolog is an old timer while rule-based languages have evolved since Prolog's birth.

Suggested "Prolog-likeness" for RIF:

1. Horn clauses

2. Prolog-like syntax

3. Declarative semantics defrined in terms of "fixpoint" or equivalently of "minimal models".

The procedural semantics (of Prolog) should not be compelling for RIF but only one option among many.

Position in the DC structure


list (by names) other DCs that depend on that one or on which it depends


Where does this design constraint come from? E.g. the charter, one or more of the already published UC, one or more of the rule systems listed in RIFRAF, an UC not covered in the current version of UCR


Extremely urgent for RIF to get accepted by users and scholars alike.


Fran├žoisBry, JosDeRoo, PaulaLaviniaPatranjan