[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Peter.Hunsberger@stjude.org (Hunsberger, Peter) writes:
>> [Jeff Lowery]
>> Is there a universal mapping language that can be used across
>> all data representations (a.k.a. mediums)? At the risk of
>> sounding like a thrall of certain fascists, I really do think
>> that any such universal mapping language will, at it's heart,
>> be formulated on relational algebra. That's not to say that
>> all models must conform to integrity constraints under all
>> operations; what it does say is that those potential
>> integrity violations are understood and handled correctly
>> when data is moved from one representation to the next
>> through the defined mapping operations.
>
>Hmm, I might even grant integrity constraint conformation (99.99% or
>the time). What I wouldn't necessarily expect is normalizations that
>conforms to what experts in the current relational world might expect:
>I'm starting to believe that data normalization and metadata
>normalization are orthogonal to each other.
I think I'm with Peter on this one as far as normalization.
At the same time, though, I think there's a huge difference between the
expectations of relational databases - which really demand a schema
upfront before you're allowed to work with data - and XML, which has no
such requirements. No rules, no violation - no harm, no foul.
One of these days I'd like to figure out if the math underlying RELAX NG
and the math underlying relations can be made compatible. That seems
like a plausible path forward toward an easily processable and vaguely
cross-media world, but I still don't think it'll cover all the
differences.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
