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

Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:58:19 -0500
• In-reply-to: <001501c1b836$3ffb67b0$fad7fea9@gateway>

2/17/2002 11:39:25 PM, "Gary Stephenson" <garys@i...> wrote:

>
>Absolutely. Date is right to insist that the data model be strongly-typed
>(albeit dynamically so).  We (er..  I ) already use RelaxNG and the XML
>Schemas Datataypes for dynamically defining domains in our DBMS,  over and
>above for the "typing" of XML elements.  I think there is great potential
>there for a unified typed data model embracing both relations (RDBMS) and
>trees (XML).  Whether this data model could be usefully deployed generically
>within REST is what I am trying to explore here.


I see what you're getting at ... I don't know if REST would say anything one
way or the other about this, after all it is just HTTP best practice not
anything you can't do today.  

>
>yup!  Except that he'd actually like us to implement a relational database
>the way _Date_ defined it! <g>  This has always been my big problem with the
>Third Manifesto stuff, as also with  RDBMS systems in general.  It would
>seem that they are in fact impossible to implement!  If not, then why hasn't
>anyone - including Date and Fabian Pascal - yet done so?

Well, I've learned the hard way that if you ask Fabian Pascal this question,
he will rudely question your intelligence, education, experience, 
... parentage, species <grin> ... but not offer a compelling answer.

For what it is worth, there is supposedly a "stealth"
company with a patent on a truly innovative database technology that
will do all this with the assistance/blessing of Codd and Date.  The
only trace of them I've found on the internet is this help wanted ad:
http://www.cppsig.org/guestbook/ [search for "Codd" within the page],
and US Patent 6,009,432

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Gary Stephenson" <garys@i...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Gary Stephenson" <garys@i...>

• Prev by Date: Crossposting: was Namespaces and URIs
• Next by Date: 14 Theses around "Namespace Documents"
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread