[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On the subject of XML databases, providing the 'collection' function
> seems like an afterthought in the overall scheme of things, mostly
> passing the buck to the vendors to figure out how to virtualize their
> storage systems for the XQuery engine, rather than approaching and
> working with those vendors to agree on a concise model for addressing
> collections of documents, wherever they may roam. But that's just my
> opinion, this is only the second XML database I've worked on.
This remark suggests that you weren't aware that the XQuery WG consists
largely of vendors, and that all specifications are put out to public
review, and get many comments from those vendors who aren't members of the
WG themselves. (That's why it takes so long!)
The collection() function is deliberately designed as a high-level
abstraction that doesn't constrain the architecture of database products,
since we know there is a lot of variety there to be accommodated. Hopefully
there will be some convergence on naming and addressing schemes to be used
in the collection URI, but the language design doesn't rely on that
happening, and leaves room for vendor flexibility. That's the way it should
be.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|
