Re: Rich semantics and expressiveness

Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de> writes:

> Oh! I have to admit that I did not think that far. By "relational
> schemes" I just meant collections of table definitions by their
> attributes, together with some basic inter-table relationships like
> foreignkeys. Now, with such general integrity constraints in mind, the
> whole discussion might perhaps get quite another direction. Hm...

But those integrity constraints _enforce_ a certain semantic
consistencies. They do not _represent_ semantic relationships as such,
do they?

Cheers,
Hamish