Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Friday, 25 April 2003 at 01:54, Dare Obasanjo wrote: > Or he could just define a mapping between the input XML and his > relational tables using a number of XML mapping technologies that target > his database of choice. For instance if he was a user Microsoft's SQL > Server 2000 this could easily be handled by SQLXML > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/sqlxml). This is the point of the article though: every different schema has a different mapping which is fine until they start being refined and refactored over time. Schema mapping works well for static xml, but isn't suited to extensible, modular xml. > Also in we are close to having the > major relational databases providing native XML storage and query which > makes this point moot. Storing the XML in a database doesn't remove the problem of mapping into the business, it just postpones it. > XSLT is your friend. In the scenario I discuss XSLT is isomorphic to SAX which is isomorphic to DOM. Thye all require you to change the processor when you extend the XML. > Soon we'll have XQuery and this will be even more > of a moot point. Not sure if this is true. Can anyone demonstrate that I don't need knowledge of the structure of the document to query it? - Ian <iand@i...> "The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
|
