[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Subtyping in XML

• To: 'John Schlesinger' <jschlesinger@c...>, Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: RE: Subtyping in XML
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:30:18 -0700
• Cc: "'paul@p...'" <paul@p...>, "'ht@c...'" <ht@c...>, "Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>, 'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@m...>

Sorry, John, I think your correction was valid, but I wound up arguing
against classes being domains, whereas you were really pointing out that
tables were not domains. 
 
Tables do not represent domains, gotcha.  Except... 
 
To a relational mind, classes may represent a type or an entity. You're
suppose to model entities to tables and types to columns. The problem is
that the interpretation of what constitutes and entity vs. type is
subjective. It depends on how the data will be used, and different
viewpoints may coexist for the same implementation.
 
So there's some remarkable subtleties in the argument for mapping a class to
a domain.  Personally, I'm struggling with trying to grasp why a proposition
isn't just another kind of type. It seems to my poor eyes that the only real
difference between proposition and domain is are the functional aspects of
the two (with propositions having special processing capabilities). In other
words, propositions are native types of the relational model. 
 
I hope this essay answer scores a better grade.

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: Subtyping in XML
• Next by Date: xml implementations (was: xsltc ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException, BUG?)
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: Subtyping in XML
• Next by thread: RE: Subtyping in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread