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

RE: Caught napping!

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Caught napping!
• From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:07:20 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@m...]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:03 AM
> To: PaulT
> Cc: Sean McGrath; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Caught napping!
> 
> 
> PaulT scripsit:
> 
> > 1. XML has no reasonable model behind it.
> > ( where it is? where is the math, 'mapped'  into
> > some real stuff ( like it is with SQL and/or regexprs),
> 
> Google for "hedge automata".

I'm having trouble reconciling that (implied) assertion with the thread that
more or less concludes at
http://lists2.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200110/msg00337.html.  If even the
W3C Schema people explicitly rejected the idea of basing their work on
Murata's work, in what sense is hedge/forest automata the "reasonable model"
behind XML?  

For that matter, if it is true that no commercial RDBMS has implemented more
than about half of Codds rules ... and (at least according to some rant by
Date I vaguely recall) the current SQL standard says nothing about Codd or
the relational model, the SQL people have the same issue.  I don't claim to
understand the details here, but it seems inappropriate to ignore the actual
details of Codds and Murata's technical work when writing the specs and then
appeal to their mathematical credibility to market the result.

Again, I'm trying to understand this better; if Murata-san, Dr. Fuchs, or
someone who understands this better than I do could set me straight, I would
be appreciative.

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: RE: Caught napping!
• Previous by thread: SV: Caught napping!
• Next by thread: RE: Caught napping!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread