lagache@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Edouard Lagache) (08/21/88)
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