[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Data storage, data exchange, data manipulation
- From: Jeff Lowery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>,email@example.com
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 22:29:14 -0700
I hope we can define a formal data model that has the "relational"
characteristic of defining mathematical operands that are manipulated by
well-defined operators, but has the "XML" characteristic of dealing with
attributed trees (or graphs, or nested sets, or whatever...i.e., an "infoset
Yes. The relational model, though formally correct, is too ugly to be
believed. I don't know that infoset algebra will be any better; however,
correct relational thought can be attained through reading narratives and
examples of those who 'get it'. Kinda like learning about Nirvana from Zen
koans (an indirect approach if ever there was one). If we can get someone
who understands XML model formalism that can a) teach it to someone in an
informal manner; b) defend against the attacks of the relational cognoscenti
in a formal manner; then we're set to go to town.
Now, being able to map the infoset model to a variety of physical models:
there's the rub. XML has some advantage here in that its hierarchical
structure correlates well with the object hierarchy of object-oriented
languages. Also, in the case of XML Schema, the type hierarchies has some
similarities with OO class hierarchies, also. This is a big win over the
mapping of relational models to OO ones.
Granted, the RDBMS people tend to say this is impossible,
Wouldn't you, also, if all your domain expertise was relationally based?
XML will do better in regards to formalism, but it may take revising that
cherished 1.0 standard.