🚀 go-pugleaf

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