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

Re: XQuery collections [What niche is XQuery targeting?]

• Subject: Re: XQuery collections [What niche is XQuery targeting?]
• From: Tom Bradford <tbradford@o...>
• Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:42:03 -0500
• Cc: 'XML Developers List' <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <E1Ce8h0-0006Vz-00@u...>
• Organization: OpenLink Software
• References: <E1Ce8h0-0006Vz-00@u...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

No, I'm very aware of this, though a question non-member's actual clout 
in the process considering everything I know about the group's inner 
workings.

The fact is that even the grammar exposed by SiXDML (along with 
associated suggestions for performing joins) is a better approach to 
querying collections.  It represents collections as tangible paths, 
still leaving the flexibility of resolution to the vendor.

Just seems that for a language that is repeatedly said to be designed 
with XML databases in mind, having only one very abstract tie to an 
amorphous concept makes it minimally useful as a general manipulation 
language for use by xml database developers.

This is an opportunity for the WG to eat W3C dog food, but do it for a 
reason.  Perhaps a requirement of the argument to the collection 
function should be that the location must minimally yield a document 
with an rdf list of associated resources, if the engine is capable of 
producing such a list, which I'm inclined to believe that most will be.

--
Tom Bradford - Virtuoso Technology Evangelist
OpenLink Software: http://www.openlinksw.com/
Personal Web Log:  http://www.tbradford.org/


Michael Kay wrote:
> This remark suggests that you weren't aware that the XQuery WG consists
> largely of vendors, and that all specifications are put out to public
> review, and get many comments from those vendors who aren't members of the
> WG themselves. (That's why it takes so long!)
> 
> The collection() function is deliberately designed as a high-level
> abstraction that doesn't constrain the architecture of database products,
> since we know there is a lot of variety there to be accommodated. Hopefully
> there will be some convergence on naming and addressing schemes to be used
> in the collection URI, but the language design doesn't rely on that
> happening, and leaves room for vendor flexibility. That's the way it should
> be.

• References:
  • RE: XQuery collections [What niche is XQuery targeting?]
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What niche is XQuery targeting?
• Next by Date: RE: What niche is XQuery targeting?
• Previous by thread: RE: XQuery collections [What niche is XQuery targeting?]
• Next by thread: RE: What niche is XQuery targeting?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread