We have a method for mapping synonymous relations – we can map the two ToSlides in
He slid the machine into position
The machine slid into position.
Or
He bought the car from John.
John sold him the car.
Mapping through a SYNONYMMAP handles rotation and reflection and missing parameters.
What do we do when either one or both relations are complex – that is, made up of several relations?
We could use an ObjectGroup
The label was affixed to the machine.
It could have been clipped, fastened, welded, riveted, brazed, soldered, glued. ToFasten would match ToBolt, ToScrew, ToTie.
We make up an ObjectGroup of relations, where the relations are separate and independent– the ObjectGroup would have an OR as the conjunction, meaning that any relation in the group would match.
Sometimes the relations are sequential or layered.
"He concluded that" means (roughly) that he considered something and then decided – he didn’t just decide without any basis (the "then" is important – if he decides, then continues to consider, he didn’t conclude). Another ObjectGroup – this time with an AND conjunction.
The equivalent of "He concluded" is the combination of "He considered" and "He decided", where the two relations are linked causally – that means the ToConsider relation ended at or before the ToDecide relation began, and there is a causal link – he didn’t consider it last week and toss a coin before deciding this week (unless tossing a coin was the decision method after consideration).
Does this capture everything implicit in the clausal meaning of ToConclude?
Where do these maps sit – does this map provide meanings for ToConclude, ToConsider, ToDecide, or is the structure only used during Semantic Search?
It seems reasonable to conclude it provides a more detailed meaning of ToConclude, but if you are at ToConsider or ToDecide, what does it represent? It is showing how they can be used in a larger structure, but is it a meaning for them?
If ToConsider caused ToDecide, what does ToCause look like?
If we say that RelationA caused RelationB, then RelationA must have existed and been true – it need not continue to exist
The explosion caused widespread devastation.
We have two types of cause – an instantaneous cause resulting in long term effect, and a cause which slightly precedes the effect, the effect disappearing soon after removal of the cause –
The rash causes itching.
The rash goes away, so does the itching.
We have another type of causal relation –
The slow buildup of gas caused the explosion.
This is causation with a trigger point.
The long term lack of vitamin D caused stunting of growth.
This is causation with irreversibility.
