![]() | |
#31
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sep 28, 1:31 am, "V.J. Kumar" <vjkm... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Jan Hidders <hidd... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote innews:1190926317.715110.61110 (AT) g4g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com: ... There is an essay written [by Codd] called "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks". "Sapienti sat !" as they say in Sanskrit. They do? Tha'ts funny. We say that in Latin. :-) Yeah, Latin is just a Hindi-European dialect Sanskrit simplified for Europeans' use as Sir William Jones discovered to his utter amazement more than 200 hundred years ago ![]() According to wikipedia, Sir William Jones believed that Sanskrit and Latin had a common ancestor, not that one was derived from the other. I guess it depends on how valid you deem the source. But then I also like to believe wikipedia was written by one jolly person, without much of a life, but an unending supply of donuts. Its like a safety blanket for me. |
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I can store and manage this data? |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I can store and manage this data? |
#34
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
On 27 sep, 22:52, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote: Jan Hidders wrote: On 27 sep, 19:07, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote: Jan Hidders wrote: On 27 sep, 16:27, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote: Jan Hidders wrote: On 27 sep, 02:19, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote: Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake? It's all hype, of course. Btw., what fundamental flaws? Well, let's see... How about we start with: "The inability to re-order the data without changing meaning and without destroying information." ? "Hierarchical models such as XML" are not necessarily ordered-only data models. In fact most proposals for semistructured data models before XML weren't. But even in XML this is not a big problem. Whether reordering destroys information or not depends on your interpretation of the data. If you send me an XML document and in addition tell me that certain parts represent sets then I can reorder them without destroying any information. The fact that XML is an ordered data model only implies that it *might* destroy informaton, not that it *must*. That's a nit. If one cannot always safely reorder, then one cannot safely reorder. I thought we were having a serious discussion, not playing trivial word games. My mistake. I am having a serious discussion. I am not the one picking at nits. I disagree. I think you are. |
|
What your position boils down to is: XML is needlessly complex. Not really. What I said is that concerning the aspect we were discussing it is actually missing a construct. So my position is more accurately described as that it is "too simple", not "too complex". |
|
As a result of the needless complexity, one cannot re-order the data without changing meaning and without destroying information. That is too imprecise to be correct. You can in some sense always reorder if you want to. What I said is that whether this loses information or not is a matter of interpretation. |
|
this is also true for the Relational Model: you cannot always arbitrarily permute the atomic values in a relation without risking changing its meaning. Also there it is a matter of interpretation whether this is actually a problem or not. |
|
BUT if we add even more complexity, we can sometimes re-order data. Sometimes. Yes, when it is appropriate, which is not always. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |