[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
> I recognized in CS 101 that a binary tree is just a table, skewed 45 > degrees, a non-binary tree a sparse table, skewed 45 degrees. They are > abstractions of the *same* concept! Hence, it ought to be just as valid to > speak of XML tables, as XML trees. No, I don't think they are. Although objects, tables, and XML elements may all be representations of the same things, the way in which associations between these "things" are allowed are quite different IMO. The relational model stores all relationships as the same thing, which makes it quite dumb (in the incapable of doing a complex things meaning). OO gives you a morass. XML gives you containment, ancestry, and has the capacity to provide much more specific relations based on schema. Although it may be true that everything in the ontological space of the physical universe is a thing or a relation, I don't think that model is specific enough for most purposes. Maybe I'm missing something though? > Perhaps a matrix-algebra mathematician can get around to having an > epiphany, and come up with the ..... "relational XML object model". It is possible, but this wouldn't be any improvement.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|