Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
 5/12/2002 11:14:20 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> wrote: >At 11:03 AM -0400 5/12/02, Mike Champion wrote: > > >>their careers and affiliations, it looks to me like the stated goal >>is the real orientation -- a unification of RDBMS, OO, and XML querying >>approaches. As best I recall, the criticism from RDBMS folks has been >>that it's too XML-centric. >> > >Where exactly does it state that? http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/ "One of the great strengths of XML is its flexibility in representing many different kinds of information from diverse sources. To exploit this flexibility, an XML query language must provide features for retrieving and interpreting information from these diverse sources." "It is designed to be a small, easily implementable language in which queries are concise and easily understood. It is also flexible enough to query a broad spectrum of XML information sources, including both databases and documents. ... XQuery is derived from an XML query language called Quilt [Quilt], which in turn borrowed features from several other languages, including XPath 1.0 [XPath 1.0], XQL [XQL], XML-QL [XML-QL], SQL [SQL], and OQL [ODMG]." Maybe "unification of approaches" is too strong, but clearly the objective is to query XML views of data irrespective of whether the physical data are in documents, SQL databases, OO repositories, or native XML databases. > I must say that if that is indeed > the goal, then it is doomed to failure. RDBMS, OO, and XML are three > very different models and I don't think you can usefully combine > them. Well, XML is a universal data meta-format; you can represent SQL, OO, and documentL data in XML, and XQuery lets you query that representation. I didn't mean to imply that XQuery would let you unify the underlying data models. It's true that you lose some of the relational model in an XML representation (the order of "rows" and "columns" becomes significant, and duplicates become allowed all of a sudden, and XQuery has to bend over backwards to allow these XML-isms to be ignored, as best I understand it). Then again, the relational purists are always complaining that these aspects of the true relational model are ignored in many SQL database products, so I'm not sure that the practical significance of the impedence mismatch is all that profound. I personally find this the most appealing aspect of XQuery -- I *want* to be able to do a join across an XML document collection and a table in an RDBMS, and maybe some topic map or RDF metadata thrown in for good measure. But if you're right, it won't be the first time I've been cruelly disillusioned -- I've given up all hope that it will be a "small, easily implementable language" until it has had its butt whupped by Father Darwin a few times. <grin> 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
