Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site water.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!rggoebel
From: rggoebel@water.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG)
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Prolog: first order??
Message-ID: <697@water.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 10:09:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: water.697
Posted: Fri Jul 12 10:09:28 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 09:23:45 EDT
References: <174@bcsaic.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24

> > remaining strictly first order logic that to put Prolog into concrete at this
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > time would be not be productive. 
> 
> Can someone clear something up for me?  I would have thought that Prolog
> was *not* "strictly first order logic," because of the existence of
> predicates like "call" and "=.."...

The semantics of pure Prolog is well understood from a first order viewpoint
(e.g., see John Lloyd's book ``The Foundations of Logic Programming'',
Springer-Verlag, 1984).  The semantics of meta-language operations is neither
standardized nor well-formalized.  Relevant here is Bowen and Kowalski's
paper ``Amalgamating language and metalanguage in logic programming'' 
in the book ``Logic Programming'' edited by Clark and Tarnlund, Academic 
Press, 1982.

Randy Goebel
Logic Programming and Artificial Intelligence Group
Computer Science Department
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1
UUCP:	{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!watmath!water!rggoebel
CSNET:	rggoebel%water@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:	rggoebel%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa