/guid/9202a8c04000641f80000000042b23ed rename

see the rdf schema docthe core rdf schema constructs map almost exactly into the metaweb....

see the rdf schema docthe core rdf schema constructs map almost exactly into the metaweb. rdfs:resource - /type/object  rdfs:class - /type/type  rdfs:property - /type/property  rdfs:type - /type/object/type  rdfs:label - /type/object/name  rdfs:range - /type/property/expects_type  rdfs:domain - /type/property/schemathese have no equivalent in mql: rdfs:subClassOf  rdfs:subPropertyOf while you could express subtyping in the metaweb (and there are hints to the clients to do just that), the query engine itself doesn't infer type membership - other than the implicit /type/object, all typing must berepresented explicitly.rdf containers and mql collections are very different. - rdf is low-level and more expressive. - metaweb collections are simpler. - enforcing rdf container well-formedness is put off to the application. - metaweb collection consistency is enforced through mql. - rdf containers are bags (duplicate elements allowed) - metaweb collections are sets (no duplicates) (?) rdf containers are themselves resources  - requires an extra object as a level of indirection.  - ordering is handled by having a different predicate for each index mql collections are just multiple-valued properties.  - the collection is not itself an object   - ordering is handled by decorating the links with additional links   - representation of ordering is less efficient, but a more natural    extension of unordered collections.  - possibly more flexible in representing partial orders?rdfs collections are just lisp lists (first/rest/nil) - no equivalent in the metaweb datamodel, but would be easy to add - no mql support for these lists though.todo:  compare rdfs reification with mql link reification