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

RE: Primary and Foreign Keys

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:08:22 -0500

Even if we can get the semantics sharable or just get them 
all to agree that a boolean choice is not an int or is, we probably 
built traps into our own relational table designs.
An issue is that many relational systems contain 
a lot of system-specific metadata spread around throughout 
the tables to data-drive the system itself.  
Some bits are isolated into system tables, but 
others are in the content tables.  Think code systems for 
picklists, user-extensible GUI features, etc.  Now the 
question becomes, if you want to create a true content-centric 
schema minus the GUI stuff, how well will that be 
rehydratible even roundtripping in and out of the same system? 

Just [expletive deleted] the marrow out of the relational bones mechanically 
isn't enough.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@h...]

Another interesting question is whether you have to provide a vocabulary or
ontology so that these other agencies' software can discover what you mean
by "driver", "SSN", or whatever, or whether the meaning of the terms can be
taken for granted.  The first alternative is getting to be Semantic-Web-ish,
and sure would take a lot more doing.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Primary and Foreign Keys
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Primary and Foreign Keys
• Next by Date: ANN: July ZapThink Newsletter
• Previous by thread: Re: Primary and Foreign Keys
• Next by thread: Re: Primary and Foreign Keys
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread