Re: Rich semantics and expressiveness

On 22 Feb 2007, at 20:17, Hamish Harvey wrote:
>> 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?

What's the difference?

Richard


>
> Cheers,
> Hamish
>
>