Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!lagache
From: lagache@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Edouard  Lagache)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Getting ANSI interested in a Prolog standard (Re: Panel Discussion)
Keywords: PROLOG standard, ANSI
Message-ID: <25734@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 20 Aug 88 18:32:47 GMT
References: <2546@mandrill.CWRU.Edu> <528@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <297@quintus.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: lagache@violet.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Edouard Lagache)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 30

In article <297@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
	.
	. (much deleted)
	.
>To answer the last question first, it is not the companies which sell
>Prolog systems which decided not to participate.  In order to be "on"
>an ISO panel, you have to have been sent by your national standards
>organisation.  For Quintus, say, to have a representative on the ISO
>committee would mean that we would have to get ANSI to agree that it
>was a good idea to have ANSI participation.  They never asked _us_.
>(Anyone know who they _did_ ask?)  Apparently, ANSI think that a Lisp
>standard and a Scheme standard are enough.  
>

	That raises an interesting point as far as I mu concerned,
	why can't we coax ANSI to form a committee to define a "US"
	PROLOG standard.  I suspect that the only reason why nothing
	has been done is that there hasn't been enough expressions 
	of interest from the US PROLOG user community that a standard
	is needed.

	Does anyone know who at ANSI should be contacted to lobby
	for getting a standard committee started?  If I could get some
	pointers I would happy to try to mount a letter writing 
	campaign through the PROLOG forum and on the net (as if I
	have nothing better to do!)

						Edouard Lagache
						The PROLOG Forum
					lagache@violet.berkeley.edu