Types v. monadic relationsRobert MacGregor <macgreg@ISI.EDU>
To: email@example.com, interlingua@ISI.EDU
Subject: Types v. monadic relations
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 92 10:09:07 PST
From: Robert MacGregor <macgreg@ISI.EDU>
> But without types, the mapping loses the information about
> which one-place predicates were intended to represent types and which
> were intended to represent monadic relations.
What do you consider to be the semantic difference between
a "type" and a "monadic relation"? Why should we care?
Also, should I assume that the distinction between "role" and
"binary relation" (whatever it may be) is similar?