[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 02:18 PM 8/25/2003, lbradshaw@dbex.com wrote:
>So when someone says to me that an XML doc is, also, a database, and is
>better at being a database than Oracle (or your favorite vendor) it gives
>me heartburn. Someone actually said that to me, quite emphatically, recently.
Depends on what you mean by a database. If you mark up a Shakespeare
document, you can do rather useful queries on it. A relational database is
a bad way to represent a Shakespeare play.
>When I responded that my concern was that the embedded logic in the XML
>doc file did not support normal forms, or relations, their response was
>"what do you mean.... relations?"
I am not sure what you mean by embedded logic. You can have a database
without tables. Relational databases do not "support" normal forms,
database designers use normal forms to create database designs.
>For sure, people are trying to do terabyte systems that integrate
>normalized data and legacy document data stores (such as the journal
>"Nature"), primarily in XML, that is to say by converting out of an RDBMS
>like Oracle and into pure XML docs without a dbms back end. This is the
>source of my concern. They need some guidance, and will certainly receive
>it, in one form (gentle comments in forums like this one) or another (when
>their systems fail in production, or worse, never get past failed
>prototype constructs).
>
>Still, I remain open minded, and if someone can offer proofs that support:
>- XML as a best practice (in any regard)
Look at web messages, delivery of information to web sites, some kinds of
technical documentation.
>- XML as supporting RM
It doesn't.
>- XML as a programming language (embedded logic, etc)
It isn't. But if you are interested in XML-centric programming languages, I
suggest you check out XQuery.
>- XML as ISO 9000 compliant
>- XML as CMM complaint
What do either of these have to do with the underlying database model?
Jonathan
|
