Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: 'xml-dev' <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] hierarchical XML in a relational DB structure - moving nodes
- From: Tatu Saloranta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eym4JsBgBXjZNsmfvbBVACRfsJUfwXS1GqK52xqwHIq2rNDniXZuBVdSMwV6+a4PrB5d3HylRcqi7U1ynsWx21sg+IPjw5VVDHijjNHQcSPmpPXjyctqCtxHcB+lXdY6P7roseC7rQ5aB92Q7QN7ZmXsJ5SwO7oYx2TKE/5v150= ;
- In-reply-to: <000c01c68094$b28da420$2201a8c0@DURANTE>
--- Ken North <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Better to choose a container that fits the shape
> of your data.
> What comes to mind is the hierarchical organization
> of the COBOL Data Division,
> with COBOL writing to an ISAM or IMS container.
> Selecting a physical data model that matches the
> nature of the data is a classic
> solution, but there are other schools of thought
> (such as separating the logical
> and physical model).
In general, though, this means using higher level
abstractions at higher level, but trying to avoid
impedance (ie. using abstraction(s) compatible enough
with the physical model). As such, I do not think that
anyone would deliberately want to use hierarchic and
relational (or OO/hierarchy, OO/relational) models in
such away, from pure modelling perspective. It's
usually only done when there are different use cases
that are perceived to be better served by using
different models (legacy systems only accessing
Oracle, newer system using XQuery).
-+ Tatu +-
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around