[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I've found the rule of thumb differences to be
pretty much what Sean describes (thanks Sean),
but I don't consider them more than rules of
thumb.
The document-centric vs. data-centric
debates are mostly political. During the time
that people were crushing 38784 style documents
into relational databases, it was the simple
structures of the relational system that were
troublesome and several papers were published
at that time on the subject. Some document
structures are harder than others, (eg,
do sections contain chapters or chapters
contain sections, are paragraphs numbered or
simply boxes o text). If one simply does a
data-centric XML, a lot of it's utility goes
away. On the other hand, a relational export
import based on simple value pairs is weaker.
CSV is weaker than that, yet the data-centric
world has prospered on CSV and we find that
most customers prefer it. Can't say why;
probably because on the surface it is simpler.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 3:52 PM
To: Sean McGrath
Cc: Roger L. Costello; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Data-oriented XML [was: Scatter/gather pattern]
Sean McGrath wrote:
> Yes, this is data-oriented. The difference between data-oriented and
> doc-oriented is primarily (a) homogenous structure, (b) no recursion
> and (c) no mixed content.
Why no recursion? A bill of materials strikes me as classic
data-oriented XML and it's entirely recursive. (I don't think the
difficulty of querying recursive structures with SQL should make them
not be considered data-oriented.)
-- Ron
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
