[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I recognized in CS 101 that a binary tree is just a table, skewed 45
> degrees, a non-binary tree a sparse table, skewed 45 degrees. They are
> abstractions of the *same* concept! Hence, it ought to be just as
valid to
> speak of XML tables, as XML trees.
No, I don't think they are. Although objects, tables, and XML elements
may all be representations of the same things, the way in which
associations between these "things" are allowed are quite different IMO.
The relational model stores all relationships as the same thing, which
makes it quite dumb (in the incapable of doing a complex things
meaning). OO gives you a morass. XML gives you containment, ancestry,
and has the capacity to provide much more specific relations based on
schema. Although it may be true that everything in the ontological space
of the physical universe is a thing or a relation, I don't think that
model is specific enough for most purposes. Maybe I'm missing something
though?
> Perhaps a matrix-algebra mathematician can get around to having an
> epiphany, and come up with the ..... "relational XML object model".
It is possible, but this wouldn't be any improvement.
|
