[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I think you are right.
Regards,
Larry Bradshaw
At 11:52 AM 8/26/2003 -0400, Mitch Amiano wrote:
>pop3 wrote:
>
>>Thank you for your response, Rick.
>>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.
>
>This thread keeps dangling too close to comparing XML and the Relational
>Model, and now XML vs CMM.
>Rant: Which stakeholder has "The One Correct" world view? In all
>situations, can all information be managed in a unified storage system?
>No. Will there often be multiple systems, legacies, and non-relational
>sources? Yes. It is common for engineers to invent proprietary formats for
>modelling and maintaining information about their designs. Does it make
>sense to manage that as XML instead? Yes. They are going to invent it
>anyway, and at least with XML I can get editors and specific techniques to
>translate the format. Does it make sense to build a relational database
>for it? In many cases, absolutely, positively not. Too much work, too
>little payback, and it can be done later if and when the understanding of
>the problem matures. Does it make sense to allow local organizations to
>address local technology needs without conforming to a global data
>management practice? Yes. Organizational policy may dictate that "all our
>relational databases are managed through our central Oracle support
>organization". If it takes six weeks and half a dozen conference calls
>just to get the DBA to create a new tablespace for a new customer support
>troubleshooting tool, someone is completely missing the point. Best
>practices are worse than useless when they prevent workers from actually
>achieving real work. End Rant
>
>>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.
>
>The best signal to noise ratio location I can recommend, is the Extreme
>Markup site. http://www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
>
>
>>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.
>
>XML works reasonably well as a markup language.
>I hear what you're saying about supporting CMM and ISO9k shops. However,
>I've seen too many shops rife with entrenched bad practices supported by
>legacy, political alliances, FUD, and money. Too many to say that
>scientific proof is really a characteristic of a CMM or ISO9k shop. What I
>suspect will happen is that XML will continue to entrench itself
>throughout the infrastructure, and at some point (if it hasn't already
>happened yet) people will simply assume that utilizing XML is a best
>practice (no matter what the scenario).
>>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>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>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>
>
>
>
|
