Just wondered if anyone had seen this:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/1...azon_simpledb/

While in principle a globally accessible database sounds like a great
idea, closer reading yields...

"Unlike MySQL, Oracle, DB2 or SQL Server, SimpleDB is not a relational
database server. It is based on the concept of items and attributes.
Two things distinguish it from most relational database managers: 1.
Attributes can have more than one value. 2. Each item can have
different attributes."

Er... Is anyone hearing the letters EAV being raised above google
headquarters in big flashing lights?

"JOG" <jog (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote


I wonder. Is it really a "globally accessible database" that is the holy
grail here?
Or is it something more like a "universally accepted data sublanguage"?

The thing that makes XML attractive to some people is not that it would be a
good basis on which to build a dtabase, but that it seems convenient for
data exchange. I shudder at the idea of XML becoming the universal data
sublanguage, but it sure is growing by leaps and bounds.

JOG wrote:

Why google headquarters? I thought we were talking about Amazon's
SimpleDB not Google's BigTable. http://labs.google.com/papers/bigtable.html

"David Cressey" <cressey73 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote


Is XML actually attractive to significant numbers of people? It seems to me
that no one wants to admit they know little or nothing about it, but they
keep hearing about it and fear they'll seem ignorant and out of touch if
they don't claim to want to use it too. Being in with the in-crowd is what
is attractive; as it always is.

I've got a couple of customers who have found out the hard way that parsing
gargantuan XML documents can kill the biggest systems. Presented with the
option of using schema-based transformation or switching to files of
fixed-width fields they both opted to abandon XML entirely and are delighted
with their new fixed-width field files. Bizarrely, one was using XML to
move data between two machines running identical software.

Awareness of database theory is almost non-existent. Is it hard to believe
that awareness of other technical subjects is equally dire, or worse?

Roy

On Dec 18, 11:53 am, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:
Now there's a freudian slip on my part if ever I saw one...

"JOG" <jog (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote

I read the comments at the end. At least two commentators said "smells like
xxx" (where xxx is something rde you might do to your nose). I don't want
to mention the actual name for fear of conjuring up an evil spirit.

On Dec 18, 4:12 am, "Roy Hann" <specia... (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat>
wrote:
Or use XML-complient structure:

<comma_separated_doc>
a,b,c,d
e,f,g,h
....
</comma_separated_doc>

It is much funnier read on the dailywtf.com, but I'm unable to recover
the reference:-)

On 2007-12-18, Roy Hann wrote:

I'd divide the answer into two. For the original use SGML/XML and
related markup languages (like HTML) were meant for, i.e. markup of
running text compatible with plain text editors, they still hold quite a
lot of value.

The match for data is much weaker. The only real value I can find in XML
there is that currently we don't really have a commonly accepted and
implemented format in which to serialize datasets. At least serializing
in-transit ones into a metaformat that all the other people use gives us
some minimal sharing of tools, like parsers, browsers and APIs.
Sometimes we even get to the point of serializing to a proper, shared,
concrete format (say vCal or RSS), so that the compatibility runs
deeper.

But of course that is not how most people use XML; they use it for
everything. Then Bad Things Happen: using XML implies inserting an extra
layer of complexity into your system. Its textual encoding entails
bloat. The rich hierarchical structure which serves text so well invites
all of the usual data modelling mistakes. People worry too much about
the metaformat to lay the proper groundwork for the actual formats. Data
ends up being locked up inside a serialization, when we'd really like
random access. Tying applications to a serialization, i.e. a physical
data format, makes data independence impossible to achieve. And of
course the rest of the big picture, like data language design,
transactional guarantees and integrity still haven't been solved, so
that everybody ends up cooking their own and more often than not getting
it horribly wrong. The list goes on.

XML has its uses. Unfortunately the hype causes people to misapply it.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy (AT) iki (DOT) fi, tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

Sampo Syreeni <decoy (AT) iki (DOT) fi> writes:
i.e. SGML was originally GML before becoming "standard gml" with
ISO standard. GML
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#sgml

was invented at the science center in '69
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

(G, M, and L, are the inventors initial motivated requirement for
acronym with those letters) ... at the time, somewhat motivated by the
need for use in legal documents.
http://xml.coverpages.org/sgmlhist0.html

science center was also responsible for virtual machine implementation
and a lot of timesharing and interactive related applications.

the original documentation formater developed at the science center was
called *script*, used "dot" formating commands ... somewhat similar
to earlier implementation done for ctss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUNOFF
and
http://mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/CC-244.html

aka some of the ctss people went to the science center on 4th flr of 545
tech sq and some went to multics on 5th flr.

the initial "gml" implementation was done by adding gml tags to script
document formater.

cern was also a large virtual machine implementation ... using various
applications ... including a script clone written by univ. of waterloo.
this talks about evolution from sgml into html:
http://infomesh.net/html/history/early

the first webserver outside of europe was on the virtual machine
system at slac (slac and cern shared a lot of software)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history.../history.shtml

the science center's virtual machine implementation was also
used at sjr for the original relational/sql implementation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#systemr

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
Ah, I get misty eyed reading about GML, SGML and remembering SNADS,
DISOSS and the Common Suppository.