Types v. monadic relations

• Mail folder: Interlingua Mail
• Next message: Peter Karp: "Re: Report on ANSI X3H4 meeting"
• Previous message: Matthew L. Ginsberg: "Re: Report on ANSI X3H4 meeting"
• Reply: YOUR NAME HERE: "Re: Types v. monadic relations"

Message-id: <9202031809.AA08875@quark.isi.edu>
To: sowa@watson.ibm.com, interlingua@ISI.EDU
Reply-To: macgregor@ISI.EDU
Subject: Types v. monadic relations
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 92 10:09:07 PST
From: Robert MacGregor <macgreg@ISI.EDU>

John,

> 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?

- Bob