A DCG that matches the rest of the input - prolog

This is the predicate that does what it should, namely, collect whatever is left on input when part of a DCG:
rest([H|T], [H|T], []).
rest([], [], []).
but I am struggling to define this as a DCG... Or is it at all doable?
This of course is not the same (although it does the same when used in the same manner):
rest([H|T]) --> [H], !, rest(T).
rest([]) --> [].
The reason I think I need this is that the rest//1 is part of a set of DCG rules that I need to parse the input. I could do phrase(foo(T), Input, Rest), but then I would have to call another phrase(bar(T1), Rest).
Say I know that all I have left on input is a string of digits that I want as an integer:
phrase(stuff_n(Stuff, N), `some other stuff, 1324`).
stuff_n(Stuff, N) -->
stuff(Stuff),
rest(Rest),
{ number_codes(N, Rest),
integer(N)
}.

Answering my own silly question:
#CapelliC gave a solution that works (+1). It does something I don't understand :-(, but the real issue was that I did not understand the problem I was trying to solve. The real problem was:
Problem
You have as input a code list that you need to parse. The result should be a term. You know quite close to the beginning of this list of codes what the rest looks like. In other words, it begins with a "keyword" that defines the contents. In some cases, after some point in the input, the rest of the contents do not need to be parsed: instead, they are collected in the resulting term as a code list.
Solution
One possible solution is to break up the parsing in two calls to phrase/3 (because there is no reason not to?):
Read the keyword (first call to phrase/3) and make it an atom;
Look up in a table what the rest is supposed to look like;
Parse only what needs to be parsed (second call to phrase/3).
Code
So, using an approach from (O'Keefe 1990) and taking advantage of library(dcg/basics) available in SWI-Prolog, with a file rest.pl:
:- use_module(library(dcg/basics)).
codes_term(Codes, Term) :-
phrase(dcg_basics:nonblanks(Word), Codes, Codes_rest),
atom_codes(Keyword, Word),
kw(Keyword, Content, Rest, Term),
phrase(items(Content), Codes_rest, Rest).
kw(foo, [space, integer(N), space, integer(M)], [], foo(N, M)).
kw(bar, [], Text, bar(Text)).
kw(baz, [space, integer(N), space], Rest, baz(N, Rest)).
items([I|Is]) -->
item(I),
items(Is).
items([]) --> [].
item(space) --> " ".
item(integer(N)) --> dcg_basics:integer(N).
It is important that here, the "rest" does not need to be handled by a DCG rule at all.
Example use
This solution is nice because it is deterministic, and very easy to expand: just add clauses to the kw/4 table and item//1 rules. (Note the use of the --traditional flag when starting SWI-Prolog, for double-quote delimited code lists)
$ swipl --traditional --quiet
?- [rest].
true.
?- codes_term("foo 22 7", T).
T = foo(22, 7).
?- codes_term("bar 22 7", T).
T = bar([32, 50, 50, 32, 55]).
?- codes_term("baz 22 7", T).
T = baz(22, [55]).

An alternative (that doesn't leave a choice point behind) is to use the call//1 built-in non-terminal with a lambda expression. Using Logtalk's lambda expression syntax to illustrate:
rest(Rest) --> call({Rest}/[Rest,_]>>true).
This solution is a bit nasty, however, as it uses a variable with a dual role in the lambda expression (which triggers a warning with the Logtalk compiler). An usage example:
:- object(rest).
:- public(test/2).
test(Input, Rest) :-
phrase(input(Rest), Input).
input(Rest) --> [a,b,c], rest(Rest).
rest(Rest) --> call({Rest}/[Rest,_]>>true).
% rest([C|Cs]) --> [C|Cs]. % Carlo's solution
:- end_object.
Assuming the above object is saved in a dcg_rest.lgt source file:
$ swilgt
...
?- {dcg_rest}.
* Variable A have dual role in lambda expression: {A}/[A,B]>>true
* in file /Users/pmoura/Desktop/dcg_rest.lgt between lines 13-14
* while compiling object rest
% [ /Users/pmoura/Desktop/dcg_rest.lgt loaded ]
% 1 compilation warning
true.
?- rest::test([a,b,c,d,e], Rest).
Rest = [d, e].
You should be able to get the same results using other lambda expressions implementation such as Ulrich's lambda library.

could be
rest([C|Cs]) --> [C|Cs] .
at least in SWI-Prolog, it seems to run (I used library(dcg/basics) to get the number)
line(I,R) --> integer(I), rest(R).
?- phrase(line(N,R), `6546 okok`).
N = 6546,
R = [32, 111, 107, 111, 107]

Related

PROLOG - Get a list of all the rules an entity verifies

I'm formalizing linguistic data into predicates and entities and doing some reasoning in prolog. Imagine I begin with:
breathe(X) :- snore(X).
sleep(X) :- snore(X).
rest(X) :- sleep(X).
live(X) :- breathe(X); eat(X); sleep(X).
snore(john).
sleep(lucy).
My data can get big enough and I would like to get a list of entities and predicates in order to iterate them and check how many predicates an entity verifies, the output can be lists like:
[john, [snore, breathe, sleep, rest, live]]
[lucy, [sleep, rest]]
or predicates
participant(john, [snore, breathe, sleep, rest, live]).
participant(lucy, [sleep, rest]).
Thanks for your help, I have no clue at this moment.
Representing live knowledge about an abstract world can get messy. There are a lot of different possibilities, and a lot of variance depending of which Prolog system you're using.
Here is an example of your code running in SWI-Prolog, but the same idea should work (more or less) unchanged on any Prolog out there that provides call/N and setof/3 builtins.
:- module(list_entities_that_verify_a_pred,
[participant/2]).
:- redefine_system_predicate(sleep/1).
:- discontiguous breathe/1,sleep/1,rest/1,live/1,snore/1.
breathe(X) :- snore(X).
sleep(X) :- snore(X).
rest(X) :- sleep(X).
live(X) :- breathe(X); /* eat(X);*/ sleep(X).
snore(john).
sleep(lucy).
to_verify(breathe).
to_verify(sleep).
to_verify(rest).
to_verify(live).
to_verify(snore).
participant(Person,Verified) :-
setof(Pred,(to_verify(Pred),call(Pred,Person)),Verified).
First, note I have commented the call to eat/1, to avoid a missing definition exception, so we can try to call the partecipant/2 predicate:
?- participant(P,L).
P = john,
L = [breathe, live, rest, sleep, snore] ;
P = lucy,
L = [live, rest, sleep].
From an architecture viewpoint, the main point to note it's the introduction of to_verify/1, to ease the workflow.
An alternative is using forward chaining using Constraint Handling Rules, an underappreciated paradigm of computation.
This is done using SWI-Prolog's CHR library. The rule engine is implemented "on top of Prolog" and adding a rule to the "constraint store" looks like calling a Prolog goal. The "constraint store" holding the current state of computation disappears once the goal completes.
Note that I'm currently not 100% certain of CHR semantics (it seems my brain is hardwired to read Prolog now) but this code seems to work.
In file sleep.pl:
:- module(forward,[
snore/1,
sleep/1,
collect/2,
pull/2
]).
:- use_module(library(chr)).
:- chr_constraint snore/1, sleep/1, breathe/1.
:- chr_constraint eat/1, live/1, rest/1, collect/2, pull/2.
snore(X) ==> breathe(X).
snore(X) ==> sleep(X).
sleep(X) ==> rest(X).
breathe(X) ==> live(X).
eat(X) ==> live(X).
sleep(X) ==> live(X).
live(X) \ live(X) <=> true. % eliminates duplicates
collect(Who,L),snore(Who) <=> collect(Who,[snore|L]).
collect(Who,L),sleep(Who) <=> collect(Who,[sleep|L]).
collect(Who,L),breathe(Who) <=> collect(Who,[breathe|L]).
collect(Who,L),eat(Who) <=> collect(Who,[eat|L]).
collect(Who,L),live(Who) <=> collect(Who,[live|L]).
collect(Who,L),rest(Who) <=> collect(Who,[rest|L]).
pull(Who,L) \ collect(Who2,L2) <=> Who = Who2, L = L2.
Now we just need to start SWI-Prolog, and issue these commands:
?- [sleep].
true.
?- sleep(lucy),
collect(lucy,[]),
pull(Who,L).
Who = lucy,
L = [rest,live,sleep],
pull(lucy,[rest,live,sleep]).
?- snore(john),
collect(john,[]),
pull(Who,L).
Who = john,
L = [rest,live,breathe,sleep,snore],
pull(john,[rest,live,breathe,sleep,snore]).
You asked in a comment to Carlo's answer:
Is there a way to expose the eat predicate and the like? It looks like
I'm going to have a lot of unmatched predicate networks like owl and
proton because I'm going to use few facts and a lot of semantic
relations from Wordnet.
The issue here seems to be one of closed-world assumption (CWA) where predicates are declared (and thus can be called without generating errors) but not necessarily defined. In this case, as per CWA, what we cannot prove is true, is assumed to be false. E.g. the eat/1 predicate in your example or the "lot of unmatched predicate networks" in your comment.
A possible solution would be to define your entities as Logtalk objects that implement a protocol (or a set of protocols) that declare all the predicates you want to use. Reusing your example:
:- protocol(predicates).
:- public([
breathe/0, sleep/0, rest/0, live/0,
snore/0, eat/0
]).
:- end_protocol.
:- category(generic,
implements(predicates)).
breathe :- ::snore.
sleep :- ::snore.
rest :- ::sleep.
live :- ::breathe; ::eat; ::sleep.
:- end_category.
:- object(john, imports(generic)).
snore.
:- end_object.
:- object(lucy, imports(generic)).
sleep.
:- end_object.
If we ask an entity (object) about a predicate that it doesn't define, the query will simply fail. For example (using SWI-Prolog as backend here but you can use most Prolog systems; assuming the code above is saved in a code.lgt file):
$ swilgt
...
?- {code}.
...
?- lucy::eat.
false.
If we want to find all objects that satisfy e.g. the sleep/0 predicate:
?- findall(Object,
(current_object(Object),
conforms_to_protocol(Object, predicates),
Object::sleep),
Objects).
Objects = [john, lucy].
If we want to query all predicates satisfied by the objects (here with the simplifying assumption that all those predicates have zero arity):
?- setof(
Name,
Arity^(current_object(Object),
conforms_to_protocol(Object, predicates),
Object::current_predicate(Name/Arity),
Object::Name),
Predicates
).
Object = john,
Predicates = [breathe, live, rest, sleep, snore] ;
Object = lucy,
Predicates = [live, rest, sleep].
But, at least for the most common queries, handy predicate definitions would preferably be added to the generic category.
P.S. For more on the closed-world assumption and predicate semantics and also why Prolog modules fail to provide a sensible alternative solution see e.g. https://logtalk.org/2019/09/30/predicate-semantics.html

Prolog return a list which contains only elements which are equal to head of the list

Hello I would like to ask a doubt I have with the following code:
principio([],[]).
principio([H],[H]).
principio([H,_|_],[H]).
principio([H,H|C],P) :-
principio([H|C],R),P=[H|R].
I would like a way to get from:
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],X).
X = [222,222,222]
But in this moment I get just the head:
X = [222]
So, to keep it clear I'd like: all successive occurrences of the first element as a list.
My doubt is what does this assignment P=[H|R] why not to put just:
principio([H,H|C],P) :-
principio([H|C],P)
Also, how would you try to modify this to get the result I asked for?
Thank you
Here is two ways how you can narrow down the problem. 1st, start from an unexpectedly failing query. 2nd, start from a query that should fail but rather succeeds.
1st Diagnose unexpected incompleteness
Determine a most specific failing query
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],[222,222,222]).
false.
Generalize the query
... as much as possible. I could do this manually, or I could let Prolog do the work for me. Here I use library(diadem):
?- use_module(diadem).
true.
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],[222,222,222]).? Gen.
Gen = principio([222, 333|_], [_, _|_])
; Gen = (dif(A100, B100), principio([A100, B100|_], [_, _|_]))
; ... .
In other words: Not only does your original query fail, but also this generalization fails! Here, we only insist that the first two elements are different, and that the resulting list contains at least two elements — no matter which!
?- dif(X, Y), principio([X,Y|_],[_,_|_]).
Generalize your program
:- op(950, fy, *).
* _P_0.
principio([], _/*[]*/).
principio([_H], _/*[H]*/).
principio([H,_|_],[H]).
principio([H,H|C],P) :-
* principio([H|C],R),
* P=[H|R].
The error must reside in the little remaining part of your program. No need to read any further!
The problem is that for a list starting with two different elements you only have the clause principio([H,_|_],[H]).. So this part has to be generalized somehow.
2nd Diagnose unexpected unsoundness
Another way of finding the error would be to start with the unexpected solution:
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],[222]).
true. % incorrect !!
And then reduce the size of the query as much as possible.
?- principio([222,222],[222]).
true. % incorrect !!
Now, specialize your program inserting false as long as above query succeeds:
principio([],[]) : - false.
principio([H],[H]) :- false.
principio([H,_|_],[H]).
principio([H,H|C],P) :- false,
principio([H|C],R),
P=[H|R].
The remaining visible part is the culprit! We have to revise it. What it says is:
Any list starting with two elements corresponds to the list with the first element only.
principio([],[]).
principio([H],[H]).
principio([H,D|Xs], [H|Hs]) :-
dif(H,D),
principio([H|Xs],[H|Hs]).
principio([H,H|Xs],[H|Hs]) :-
principio([H|Xs],Hs).
In addition to the very nice answer provided by #false (+s(0)), I would point out the possibility to use DCGs for the task. They usually yield easily readable code when describing lists (see comments beside the grammar rules):
principio([H|T],Hs) :-
phrase(heads([H|T],H),Hs).
heads([],_H) --> % in the empty list
[]. % there's no element matching H
heads([H|Xs],H) --> % if the head of the list matches H
[H], % it's in the list
heads(Xs,H). % same for the tail
heads([X|Xs],H) --> % if the head of the list is
{dif(X,H)}, % different from H it's not in the list
heads(Xs,H). % same for the tail
Thus your example query yields the desired result:
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],X).
X = [222,222,222] ? ;
no

Skip/pass non-standard prolog code

I'm developing under SWI-Prolog, but my target is Erlog (https://github.com/rvirding/erlog). I need a way to use non-standard Prolog syntax.
Is there a way to write prolog code that will be disregarded by the SWI-compiler i.e. make it invisible.
Here is example how does it look like :
do_stuff(G,Amt) :- ecall(erlog_demo:efunc('Elixir.Blah':stuff({G,Amt})).
I was thinking if there is a way for SWI to skip that and I have another declaration that does nothing.
do_stuff(_,_).
One option probably is to comment it and then use parser to remove the comment before running in Erlog, but this seem cumbersome.
Any other ideas.
======
is_dialect(swi) :- catch(current_prolog_flag(dialect, swi), _, fail).
:- if(is_dialect(swi)).
do_stuff(_,_).
:- else.
do_stuff(G,Amt) :- ecall(erlog_demo:efunc('Elixir.Blah':stuff({G,Amt})).
:- endif.
Syntax error: Operator expected
I use this idiom to keep code running in different implementations
:- if(swi).
gen_hash_lin_probe(Key, HashTable, Value) :-
arg(_, HashTable, E),
nonvar(E),
E = Key-Value.
:- elif(yap).
gen_hash_lin_probe(Key, HashTable, Value) :-
HashTable =.. [htlp|Args],
nth1(_, Args, E),
nonvar(E),
E = Key-Value.
:- endif.
where predicates swi/0 or yap/0 are imported from this module(prolog_impl)
:- module(prolog_impl, [swi/0, yap/0, prolog_impl/1]).
swi :- prolog_impl(swi).
yap :- prolog_impl(yap).
prolog_impl(K) :-
F =.. [K,_,_,_,_],
current_prolog_flag(version_data, F).
One closing parenthesis is missing in the "else" branch.
do_stuff(G,Amt) :- ecall(erlog_demo:efunc('Elixir.Blah':stuff({G,Amt})). % BAD
do_stuff(G,Amt) :- ecall(erlog_demo:efunc('Elixir.Blah':stuff({G,Amt}))). % OK!
Simply count the number of opening parentheses. When . (period, full-step) is reached the difference count of opening vs closing must amount to exactly zero.
Hope that helps!
This answer is based, in part, on
#Capelli's answer and your comments on his candidate solution.
We propose a different way. Follow the dots step-by-step...
For a start, we take the following simplified and shortened snippet.
:- if(true). p(3).
:- elif(false). p(4+3).
:- endif.
In above sample we can see that the "else" branch is never taken, ever.
So... could we, in principle, put arbitrary text and binary data there?
:- if(true). p(3).
:- elif(false). p (4);;[ p())
:- endif.
нет! Upon (re-)loading, we get: ⚠ Syntax error: Operator expected
TIL that all sections between elif and endif must be valid Prolog text.
Let's try something different which was inspired by that phrases you used, in particular: "[...] use non-standard Prolog syntax [...] code that will be disregarded [...] make it invisible [...]"
To me, the phrase "non-standard syntax" indicates that new operator(s) might be introduced (or old ones redefined):
:- op(500,xfx,=>).
:- if(true). p(2).
:- elif(false). p(3 => 3).
:- endif.
Consider the following variation:
:- if(true). p(2).
:- elif(false). :- op(500,xfx,=>). % is moving the `op/3` here ok?
p(3 => 3).
:- endif.
нет! Upon (re-)loading, we get: ⚠ Unterminated conditional compilation from [...]
There is another way! We can proceed by inserting a special-purpose end_of_file fact to tell the Prolog text reader to disregard everything after end_of_file.
We use it like this:
% snip_at_end.pl
xxx1.
xxx2.
end_of_file.
xxx3.
:- op (500, xfx,eat). % broken syntax (pt.1)
1 ]][[ v % broken syntax (pt.2)
Simple test using SICStus Prolog:
$ sicstus
SICStus 4.3.2 (x86_64-linux-glibc2.12): Fri May 8 01:05:09 PDT 2015
[... License information ...]
| ?- compile(snip_at_end).
% compiling /home/stefan/prolog/snip_at_end.pl...
% compiled /home/stefan/prolog/snip_at_end.pl in module user, 40 msec 400672 bytes
yes
| ?- xxx1.
yes
| ?- xxx2.
yes
| ?- xxx3.
! Existence error in user:xxx3/0
! procedure user:xxx3/0 does not exist
! goal: user:xxx3
Hope this helps! I'm curious / interested if my answer fits your problem:)

Prolog program to return atoms in a proposition formula

I am a newbie to prolog and am trying to write a program which returns the atoms in a well formed propositional formula. For instance the query ats(and(q, imp(or(p, q), neg(p))), As). should return [p,q] for As. Below is my code which returns the formula as As. I dont know what to do to split the single F in ats in the F1 and F2 in wff so wff/2 never gets called. Please I need help to proceed from here. Thanks.
CODE
logical_atom( A ) :-
atom( A ),
atom_codes( A, [AH|_] ),
AH >= 97,
AH =< 122.
wff(A):- ground(A),
logical_atom(A).
wff(neg(A)) :- ground(A),wff(A).
wff(or(F1,F2)) :-
wff(F1),
wff(F2).
wff(and(F1,F2)) :-
wff(F1),
wff(F2).
wff(imp(F1,F2)) :-
wff(F1),
wff(F2).
ats(F, As):- wff(F), setof(F, logical_atom(F), As).
First, consider using a cleaner representation: Currently, you cannot distinguish atoms by a common functor. So, wrap them for example in a(Atom).
Second, use a DCG to describe the relation between a well-formed formula and the list of its atoms, like in:
wff_atoms(a(A)) --> [A].
wff_atoms(neg(F)) --> wff_atoms(F).
wff_atoms(or(F1,F2)) --> wff_atoms(F1), wff_atoms(F2).
wff_atoms(and(F1,F2)) --> wff_atoms(F1), wff_atoms(F2).
wff_atoms(imp(F1,F2)) --> wff_atoms(F1), wff_atoms(F2).
Example query and its result:
?- phrase(wff_atoms(and(a(q), imp(or(a(p), a(q)), neg(a(p))))), As).
As = [q, p, q, p].
This should do what you want. It extracts the unique set of atoms found in any arbitrary prolog term.
I'll leave it up to you, though, to determine what constitutes a "well formed propositional formula", as you put it in your problem statement (You might want to take a look at DCG's for parsing and validation).
The bulk of the work is done by this "worker predicate". It simply extracts, one at a time via backtracking, any atoms found in the parse tree and discards anything else:
expression_atom( [T|_] , T ) :- % Case #1: head of list is an ordinary atom
atom(T) , % - verify that the head of the list is an atom.
T \= [] % - and not an empty list
. %
expression_atom( [T|_] , A ) :- % Case #2: head of listl is a compound term
compound(T) , % - verify that the head of the list is a compound term
T =.. [_|Ts] , % - decompose it, discarding the functor and keeping the arguments
expression_atom(Ts,A) % - recurse down on the term's arguments
. %
expression_atom( [_|Ts] , A ) :- % Finally, on backtracking,
expression_atom(Ts,A) % - we simply discard the head and recurse down on the tail
. %
Then, at the top level, we have this simple predicate that accepts any [compound] prolog term and extracts the unique set of atoms found within by the worker predicate via setof/3:
expression_atoms( T , As ) :- % To get the set of unique atoms in an arbitrary term,
compound(T) , % - ensure that's its a compound term,
T =.. [_|Ts] , % - decompose it, discarding the functor and keeping the arguments
setof(A,expression_atom(Ts,A),As) % - invoke the worker predicate via setof/3
. % Easy!
I'd approach this problem using the "univ" operator =../2 and explicit recursion. Note that this solution will not generate and is not "logically correct" in that it will not process a structure with holes generously, so it will produce different results if conditions are reordered. Please see #mat's comments below.
I'm using cuts instead of if statements for personal aesthetics; you would certainly find better performance with a large explicit conditional tree. I'm not sure you'd want a predicate such as this to generate in the first place.
Univ is handy because it lets you treat Prolog terms similarly to how you would treat a complex s-expression in Lisp: it converts terms to lists of atoms. This lets you traverse Prolog terms as lists, which is handy if you aren't sure exactly what you'll be processing. It saves me from having to look for your boolean operators explicitly.
atoms_of_prop(Prop, Atoms) :-
% discard the head of the term ('and', 'imp', etc.)
Prop =.. [_|PropItems],
collect_atoms(PropItems, AtomsUnsorted),
% sorting makes the list unique in Prolog
sort(AtomsUnsorted, Atoms).
The helper predicate collect_atoms/2 processes lists of terms (univ only dismantles the outermost layer) and is mutually recursive with atoms_of_prop/2 when it finds terms. If it finds atoms, it just adds them to the result.
% base case
collect_atoms([], []).
% handle atoms
collect_atoms([A|Ps], [A|Rest]) :-
% you could replace the next test with logical_atom/1
atom(A), !,
collect_atoms(Ps, Rest).
% handle terms
collect_atoms([P|Ps], Rest) :-
compound(P), !, % compound/1 tests for terms
atoms_of_prop(P, PAtoms),
collect_atoms(Ps, PsAtoms),
append(PAtoms, PsAtoms, Rest).
% ignore everything else
collect_atoms([_|Ps], Rest) :- atoms_of_prop(Ps, Rest).
This works for your example as-is:
?- atoms_of_prop(ats(and(q, imp(or(p, q), neg(p))), As), Atoms).
Atoms = [p, q].

DCGs - how to split an atom into a list for further dcg rule processing

I have a simple grammar, which takes 3 list items and runs a different dcg rule on each.
[debug] ?- phrase(sentence(X), [sky, a, 1], []).
X = [bright, amber, on] .
Code:
sentence([A,C,R]) -->
analyse(A),
colour(C),
rating(R).
analyse(bright) --> [sky].
analyse(dark) --> [cave].
colour(red) --> [r].
colour(amber) --> [a].
colour(green) --> [g].
rating(on) --> [1].
rating(off) --> [0].
This works fine.
My problem is that my input list needs needs to have 2 items, not 3, and the second atom is a concat atom of colour and rating:
[sky, a1]
So somehow I have to (?) split this atom into [a, 1] and then the colour and rating rules will work with a simple dcg rule.
I can't work out how to do this..obviously with normal prolog, I'd just use atom_chars, but I can't work out how to interleave this with the grammar.
In a perfect world, it feels like I should not have to resort to using atom_chars, and I should be able to come up with a simple dcg rule to split it, but I'm not sure if this is possible, since we are parsing lists, not atoms.
As you have said yourself, you just need to use a predicate like atom_chars/2. You can interleave normal code into a DCG rule by enclosing it in { and }.
But there is something fishy about your problem definition. As you have also said yourself, you are parsing a list, not an atom. The list you are parsing should be already properly tokenized, otherwise you cannot expect to define a DCG that can parse it. Or am I seeing this wrong?
So in other words: you take your input, split into single chars, tokenize that using a DCG. Depending on your input, you can do the parsing in the same step.
It was clear that a refined DCG rule could work, but, alas, it took too much time to me to craft a solution for your problem.
Here it is:
sentence([A,C,R]) -->
analyse(A),
colour(C),
rating(R).
analyse(bright) --> [sky].
analyse(dark) --> [cave].
colour(red) --> [r].
colour(amber) --> [a].
colour(green) --> [g].
colour(X), As --> [A], {
atom_codes(A, Cs),
maplist(char2atomic, Cs, L),
phrase(colour(X), L, As)}.
rating(on) --> [1].
rating(off) --> [0].
char2atomic(C, A) :- code_type(C, digit) -> number_codes(A, [C]) ; atom_codes(A, [C]).
yields
?- phrase(sentence(X), [sky, a1], []).
X = [bright, amber, on]
the key it's the use of 'pushback' (i.e. colour(X), As -->...).
Here we split the unparsable input, consume a token, and push back the rest...
As usual, most of time was required to understand where my first attempt failed: I was coding char2atomic(C, A) :- atom_codes(A, [C])., but then rating//1 failed...

Resources