[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SV: [xml-dev] Caught napping!
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: SV: [xml-dev] Caught napping!
- From: "Jens Jakob Andersen, PDI" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:02:20 +0100
- Thread-index: AcFnqOfbbVgk3mTARRyq/eV/HDdbswAgPDpAACMe30AAD3zUgA==
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Caught napping!
I can see that my comments on ligical design before physical design
started a small flamestorm here.
I am sorry this happened.
But I can see that many lost the central issue of my email (and some
caught it, thanks):
We need a modelling theory, that allows us to focus on the logical
modelling first. Then we need methods to map this logical model to some
kind of physical storage. Be it a rdbms, xml-enabled rdbms, hierachical
db, oodb or a 'native xml store'.
Without the logical modelling theory in place, we will never know
whether the schema was sound and safe before we mapped it to physical
Design first, then implement.
It should not be a flamewar between "Native vs everybody else". What I
am trying to say, is that as long as we don't have a proper XML
data/document modelling theory, it will just be some exotic features
(maybe sunken cost into existing e.g. Oracle installation?) that will
determine which physical storage that will be used.
I've been around the SGML modelling theories, and most of these are
document oriented DTD theories. I am still looking for the "XML
Data/Doucment Modelling theory" (Hey, maybe I write the book myself ?)