Re: [xml-dev] Caught napping!

[Subrahmanyam Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>]

Champion, Mike wrote:

> XML does not claim to be a general theory of data; it does not compete in
> that respect with the relational model, so it's not
> "ill-defined/under-specified". You're right about the "update semantics;" I
> assure you from working on the DOM specs that XML 1.0 is has a read-only
> orientation baked deep into it. Types, of course, are a well-known issue
> that is supported in the Schema layer on top of XML itself, and are
> admittedly still a bit bleeding edge.


When I look at relational databases, I know what to look for in a 
product - from the logical model to the query language to other 
"ilities". The same is more or less the case with document management 
systems. However, I've difficulty when it comes to XML databases. They 
are different in terms of level of granularity of operations, query 
languages, etc. Most of these products have additional semantics for 
different kind of operations (queries, updates, inserts, deletes, 
imports, exports, transactions etc) on data. So my question is about the 
logical framework underlying all these "features".

Subbu