- From: Hamish Harvey <hamish@hamishharvey.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:17:57 +0000
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Cc:
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
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 19:19:26 UTC