Got it. Thank you.
Hi Frank,
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)
prospectiveRoles(dropperOf breakerOf)
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"...
My Best,
Phil