Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts

[Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

Ann, I think the followins is true --

SQL has a nice math based on relational algebra/calculus.
The truth is XML Schema does not have this.
Actually probably because of my strong bias, but I believe XML Schema
defies math -- for an example, XML Schema defies XDuce.
But this is true -- the math for RELAX/TREX was first studied in the
late 1950's, and it has *very* strong math.

<warning>speaking for himself only</warning>

regards - murali.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Ann Navarro wrote:

> At 02:05 PM 4/23/2001 -0400, Michael Champion wrote:
>
> >Anyone want to pick up the thread ... is something like W3C XML Schema a
> >"good thing" after all if it can be wrapped up in user-friendly tools? Or is
> >its "power" (aka "complexity") too great to fully encapsulate inside a
> >friendly interface?
>
> How friendly is the SQL spec? Access puts a reasonably friendly face on it,
> or you can left outer join to your heart's content by hand using a command
> line interface.
>
> SQL is certainly powerful and complex -- and both easy and difficult to use
> well.
>
> Schema is likely to be the same (and the analogy toward database-land isn't
> by accident, of course)
>
> Ann
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org
>