Using your terms and interpretation, I would say the statement "X says (Y causes Z)" is the latter, i.e. stating a unique relationship between X and the unique relationship "Y causes Z".
As you know, separately Simon Spero and Doug Foxvog gave examples of general relationships between relationships:
Simon: "is a sub property of" is a sub property of "is a specialization of". (a nice recursion!)
Doug: properVersionOfReflexivePredicate(greaterThan greaterOrEqual)
higherRankingPosition( presidentOf vicePresidentOf)
My example and question was motivated by what Jack Park wrote in his first message in this thread:
if a specific *instance* of a predicate exists as a connective between two objects, then it can be said to carry the
full semantics of the assertion itself. The instance is not an 'implicit' node: it is a vertex like any other in a graph.
If I say: A cause B, then the node which is the 'cause' predicate can carry the full semantics of the triple itself. It's not just your father's predicate anymore; it's a first class citizen. Why do I care? Consider that said predicate has entails a possibly complex biography. Who discovered it? What evidence supports it? What debates are in play about it?
Hence my disclaimer that I was only asking a question, not claiming a proof of what should be in the IF4IT standard, since the question revolves on how the standard defines the term "predicate"...
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:58:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions on the Benefits of Predicates as Nodes
Thanks for the clarification. If you don't mind, I have a follow-up question on the example you provided…
You wrote: "another example could be "X says (Y causes Z)", i.e. a predicate C could link two nodes A and B, where A or B may be a predicate, though not necessarily both."
In this example, my interpretation is that…
- X, Y, and Z are atomic Nodes
- "says" and "causes" are atomic Predicates
- (Y causes Z) is a Relationship statement
In the statement: "X says (Y causes Z)", is it really that a Predicate ("says") is linking to another Predicate OR is it that the second Predicate ("says") is linking a Node ("X") to an entire and very unique Relationship statement ("Y causes Z")?
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)