Lists Home |
Date Index |
What I mean by that is that XML directly and without interpretation or
external normalization has not been show AFAIK to support RM by any proof
Of course XML can be normalized into RM. But that does not mean that RM can
be normalized into XML, as some have said to my face, and with whom I
Ergo the discussion.
Reconciliation? You mean so that RM is the same as a Tree Model, and vice
versa? I suppose a translation or interpretive method can be done, but that
does not make RM native to the Tree Model, or vice versa.
At 08:29 AM 8/25/2003 -0700, Mike Champion wrote:
>--- firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > I am saying I have not seen a proof that XML
> > supports, or can be engineered
> > to support, the Relational Model.
>I'm not sure what you mean by that. Clearly any XML
>schema can be normalized into relations (didn't Codd
>prove something to that effect?). I'm less sure about
>this, but my reading of C. J. Date's various
>discussions of the relationship between the RM and the
>OO suggest that one could condider a particular XML
>schema a "type" and -- so long as a useful set of
>operators were defined on the type -- there's no
>difference between the RM's support (or lack of
>support) for types such as dates/times and types such
>as "invoices" or whatever.
>I believe there's a fair amount of work underway to
>reconcile the underpinnings of the relational model
>and XML's tree model. See for example
>Also, FWIW, I made the assertion in a townhall on XML
>and databases at XML 2002 that within 5-10 years the
>XML model and the RM would be theoretically
>reconciled, and some notable luminaries in the field
>were nodding their heads :-)
> > 2) Data based applications developed using the
> > Relational Model, which are
> > well engineered and designed, will feature lower
> > cost over time with
> > greater flexibility.
> > 4) Rigorous, scientific proofs exist, and are easily
> > found, for adherence
> > to the Relational Model (RM).
> > 5) I have seen nothing better than RM for improving
> > software application
> > reliability, flexibility, maintainability and
> > lowering software system
> > costs overall. If something better exists, as a
> > methodology with scientific
> > proofs, I would dearly like to see it.
>Well, I'll just ask the question that Simon and I have
>posed to Fabian Pascal a few times, resulting in a
>storm of invective but no real answer: If the RM is
>the answer to all data management problems, why do
>people keep reinventing and effectively using variants
>of the hierarchical model (such as OODBMS and XML DBMS
>and the numerous hybrid solutions that the dominant
>SQL DBMS vendors offer)? I don't buy the "the industry
>is too stupid and fad-obsessed to do the Right Thing"
>argument. There are an awful lot of smart people and
>very deep R&D pockets at Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM;
>if implementing and exploiting the RM "properly" could
>give one a competitive advantage over the others, they
>would have done this already. Instead, they've all
>turned to XML or hybrid SQL-XML-OO approaches.
>It would appear that all the "scientific proofs" in
>the world don't help one if the techniques they
>espouse can't be implemented and used by real humans.
>We don't write real software using Turing's
>mathematics, although it's important to have that as a
>theoretical foundation. I suspect that we'll
>eventually conclude something similar about Codd's --
>it's wonderful theoretical foundation for databases,
>but not a practical tool for ordinary mortals ... and
>probably never will be for a large subset of
>real-world problems, especially those where the
>"types" are complex, poorly understood, rapidly
>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
************* NOTE: ************************
Copyright CDS, Inc, 2003. All rights withheld.
The information in this message is strictly confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
this message by any other person is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
taken or omitted
to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please immediately contact the sender should this message have
been incorrectly transmitted.
This message text and any attached files are Copyright CDS, Inc 2003, and
may not be
reproduced, copied, distributed or released by any mechanical or electronic
All rights are withheld.