After the panelists made their statements, the possibility to comment on the questions to the panelists and to raise questions was granted to all attendants.
The first who commented was Marc Denecker: He remarked that the different interpretations of ``not" and ``:-" still give him an unease feeling when actually formalizing problems.
Mirek Truszczynski made a general comment to Q1: What does it mean that a program is correct?
Alexander Bochman raises the controversial point that DLP is not a Logic at all. This led to some discussion.
Marc Denecker commented on Q4 that Prolog forces one to use different vocabulary than one would use for an intuitive declarative description of a program, because it disallows guesses and there is nothing such as constraints. This enforces ``meta-programming.''
Another interesting point raised by Tomi Janhunen in personal discussion off-track concerning Q1: We have only a semantics in terms of the whole program, not in terms of single rules which makes correctness checks harder of course, because one always has to consider the whole program. Can we e.g. define the semantics of a rule separately wrt. to a given program? Does this make some sense?