[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Data storage, data exchange, data manipulation
- From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>
- To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@ingr.com>,Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>,"Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 14:46:03 -0700
I think it was Tom Passin who pointed out the distinction between conceptual
and physical data models. This would imply conceptual as well as physical
schemas, although I think all schemas to date are schemas that model a user
domain with some physical representation in mind. Can there be a conceptual
Schema? UML may get us close to defining one, but even there I think UML is
tainted by physical model pollution in subtle ways.
So a conceptual schema independent of physical representation is conceivable
to my mind. That representaion would then be transformed to various physical
schemas, although probably not isomorphically.
Now, the rules for defining a conceptual schema based on business domain I
think could be formalized, just like database schemas normalization rules
are formalized. I think a conceptual schema would model a physical reality
in the same way that mathematics models a physical reality (plus some
surreality for good measure).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 1:25 PM
> To: Ronald Bourret; Xml-Dev (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Data storage, data exchange, data manipulation
>
>
> For many reasons, schema design IS an art form, not a
> science. Lots of different methodologies can be applied,
> the conceptualization and schematization based on observation
> of any domain remains largely a "dealer's choice" then
> (as in the spelling), a matter of frequency of use.
>
> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
>
> Jeff Lowery wrote:
> > I think object-relational databases have some promise.
> Knowing how to
> > decompose and XML hierarchy just enough to result in an
> efficient relation
> > model is more of an art than a science right now: I don't
> think you get
> much
> > benefit if all parent-child relations are rigorously broken
> down into
> > primary/FK pairs, for instance.
>
> I think this is very true and will probably remain an art. One
> experience we've gotten from tools that automatically
> generate database
> schema from DTDs is that it often results in very inefficient storage
> models.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>