Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Friday, 25 April 2003 at 01:54, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > Or he could just define a mapping between the input XML and his
> > relational tables using a number of XML mapping technologies that target
> > his database of choice. For instance if he was a user Microsoft's SQL
> > Server 2000 this could easily be handled by SQLXML
> > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/sqlxml).
> This is the point of the article though: every different schema has a
> different mapping which is fine until they start being refined and
> refactored over time. Schema mapping works well for static xml, but
> isn't suited to extensible, modular xml.
RDF can be a good mapping mechanism, but the mapping itself has the same
benefits and issues no matter whether you use RDF, Topic maps, or some
home-grown mapping method possibly using xml. Using a standard can give you
some advantages - standard tools and the possibility that someone else can
use your mapping - but does not really change the essential task.