[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
2/17/2002 11:39:25 PM, "Gary Stephenson" <garys@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>Absolutely. Date is right to insist that the data model be strongly-typed
>(albeit dynamically so). We (er.. I ) already use RelaxNG and the XML
>Schemas Datataypes for dynamically defining domains in our DBMS, over and
>above for the "typing" of XML elements. I think there is great potential
>there for a unified typed data model embracing both relations (RDBMS) and
>trees (XML). Whether this data model could be usefully deployed generically
>within REST is what I am trying to explore here.
I see what you're getting at ... I don't know if REST would say anything one
way or the other about this, after all it is just HTTP best practice not
anything you can't do today.
>
>yup! Except that he'd actually like us to implement a relational database
>the way _Date_ defined it! <g> This has always been my big problem with the
>Third Manifesto stuff, as also with RDBMS systems in general. It would
>seem that they are in fact impossible to implement! If not, then why hasn't
>anyone - including Date and Fabian Pascal - yet done so?
Well, I've learned the hard way that if you ask Fabian Pascal this question,
he will rudely question your intelligence, education, experience,
... parentage, species <grin> ... but not offer a compelling answer.
For what it is worth, there is supposedly a "stealth"
company with a patent on a truly innovative database technology that
will do all this with the assistance/blessing of Codd and Date. The
only trace of them I've found on the internet is this help wanted ad:
http://www.cppsig.org/guestbook/ [search for "Codd" within the page],
and US Patent 6,009,432
|
