45 karma · joined April 13, 2016
You could think of it as "SICP for Prolog".
> We already know that a significant majority of the loans in CLOs have weak covenants that offer investors only minimal legal protection; in industry parlance, they are “cov lite.” The holders of leveraged loans will thus be fortunate to get pennies on the dollar as companies default—nothing close to the 70 cents that has been standard in the past.
My go-to for trying to understand ILP theory is Nienhuys-Cheng and de Wolf, _Foundations of Inductive Logic Programming_ and De Raedt's _Logical and Relational Learning_ is a more up-to-date overview, but I feel like there's room for a more modern textbook. This new MIL stuff seems to be be an important unifying idea that also connects back to abductive logic programming, if I understand correctly.
Just a request; no offence intended!
For example, in such a jurisdiction, if I release a piece of code under a public domain equivalent license, you would have to give me credit as the author even if the license explicitly says you don't have to: the right to be identified as the author is a moral right that I cannot waive, legally.
I have noticed a lot of Prolog programmers don't know what's in the standard and what's not - you routinely see answers given on SO that are implementation dependent when they could easily have been expressed in strictly conforming ISO Prolog.
Of course, you can get pirated versions of ISO/IEC 13211-1 and 13211-2 but even saying these exist probably makes me complicit in piracy, let alone suggesting they should be widely shared in the Prolog community. The 3 technical corrigenda that update 13211-1 are freely available[0], or at least ISO allows you to "Preview" the whole document in each case.
This was one of the earliest inductive logic programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_logic_programming) systems.