RE: [xml-dev] XML vs relational database

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

We wouldn't have anything.  The outcry would have been "SQL does all of that
already".  If the counter arguments had been one metalevel above the current
understanding of the hordes of commenting parties, the political battle
would have been over right there.  Such arguments were presented against
using SGML in document databases.  The counter-argument was the structures
of SQL were inherently inflexible and the 'artifacts' to be modeled and
captured were infinitely diverse (with a Nod To Jim Melton for being
completely even handed).  There was also the IADS and EBT existence proofs.
When we did finally get a 'one-size-fits-all' model for hypertext documents,
we wound up with the oldest one (hyperlinked gencode with in situ anchors)
that forked before the second revision.

That is my experience addressing the arguments for 'one standard' universes.
I once believed that too, but time and the river suggest it might be ok in a
limited number of cases but not many.

On the other hand, a relational db with an XML data type is a nice
compromise.

len


From: Ken North [mailto:kennorth@sbcglobal.net] 

If physical data independence and operating at a logical level had been
prime directives during the development of the XML specs, we might be
talking about nested sets (which preserve order) as the XML document model.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.