[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thank you for your response, Rick.
I agree that the record detail structure is closer, but absent normal forms
I just don't see how I can (or other folks can) advocate XML only
technology solutions in an ISO9000 or CMM compliant shop where phrases like
"..will use only proven best practices.." are in the statement of work, the
mission statement, the corporate policies and procedures, or the IT shop
process guidelines. In fact, it seems to me that XML usage is clearly a
process weakness that should be properly identified as such in various CMM
process areas as they are fulfilled.
I see RM as a proven best practice because I have seen and have reproduced
RM proofs. I do not see XML as a proven best practice for anything because
I have not seen and have not been able to develop XML proofs. Perhaps
proofs exists that have not been publicized for XML document markup or
perhaps XML data interchange as a best practice. But it is highly doubtful,
at least to me, that proofs exist or can be developed for XML as a best
practice for data management, data maintenance, data support, data systems,
document management, programming (compiled code or interpreted code) or
logic structures.
If there are mathematical proofs (set theory, set calculus, etc) , other
rigorous scientific proofs, or even significant business case proofs ( in a
rigorous business management sense), then I would really like to hear them,
and see them presented here, or on a W3C web site or someplace public like
that.
Without such I cannot endorse or advocate use of XML for anything other
than as a markup language, or maybe data interchange. IE uses such as for
embedding logic in documents, "compiled binaries", "database" or even
"document management". Nor can I support folks in a CMM or ISO9000 shop
utilizing XML to any significant degree until they can show that XML is a
proven best practice, by rigorous scientific proofs.
Mebbe I am just dense. Mebbe I just don't get it.
Thanks again.
At 12:46 AM 8/21/2003 +1000, you wrote:
><oxymoron>relationally structured data</oxymoron>
>
>of course you can represent records, but as soon as you make a tree out
>of them they're not relational in a database sense
>
>eg
>
><customer>
> <name>COMPANY X</name>
> <town>SOMEWHERE</town>
> <order>
> <part>ABC123</part>
> <quantity>2</quantity>
> </order>
> <order>
> <part>ABC234</part>
> <quantity>4</quantity>
> </order>
></customer>
>
>just isn't going to be a relational form as there's no way to determine
>a priori what the normalised records are. there's clearly 2 tables, and
>you know that "customer" has attributes name and town, and "order" has
>attributes part and quantity, but it also needs either name or town to
>complete the relation and it's not obvious which. either or both?
>
>so without some semantics you can't represent relational tables with the
>natural tree structure of xml.
>
>on the other hand
>
><customer>
> <name>COMPANY X</name>
> <town>SOMEWHERE</town>
></customer>
>
><order>
> <name>COMPANY X</name>
> <part>ABC123</part>
> <quantity>2</quantity>
></order>
><order>
> <name>COMPANY X</name>
> <part>ABC234</part>
> <quantity>4</quantity>
></order>
>
>is ok, but then from what i've seen on the list most wouldn't think of
>this single depth as the natural thing to do.
>
>my personal preference (and used day to day) is:
>
><table name="customer">
> <record>
> <attribute name="name">COMPANY X</attribute>
> <attribute name="town">SOMEWHERE</attribute>
> </record>
></table>
><table name="order">
> <record>
> <attribute name="name">COMPANY X</attribute>
> <attribute name="part">ABC123</attribute>
> <attribute name="quantity">2</attribute>
> </record>
> <record>
> <attribute name="name">COMPANY X</attribute>
> <attribute name="part">ABC234</attribute>
> <attribute name="quantity">4</attribute>
> </record>
></table>
>
>and a few minor attribute additions. but again i suspect this is not
>what most use, but then i'm happy to proved wrong.
>
>rick
>
>On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 22:52, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > <Quote>
> > Unless someone can show me how XML or an XML only tool set such as
> > TeraText supports and fulfills RM,
> > </Quote>
> >
> > Are you asserting that one cannot represent relationally structured data
> > using XML? If so, can you please elaborate?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Joe Chiusano
> > Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>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>
|
