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

RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML frag

• To: <michael.h.kay@n...>,"'Murali Mani'" <mani@C...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• From: pop3 <lbradshaw@d...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:51:41 -0400
• In-reply-to: <000001c36baa$28541fc0$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0308251237510.5815-100000@p...>

Precisely.

It is better to be very accurate in what is discussed.

Thank you.

Larry Bradshaw

At 09:15 AM 8/26/2003 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Hierarchical model had to represent all relationships using
> > parent-child. There was no concept of foreign keys. Hence
> > redundancy cannot be avoided, if you want to represent m:n
> > relationships.
>
>There was never a single definition of the hierarchical data model. Most
>writers equated it with the model implemented by the IBM product
>variously known as IMS or DL/I. Other writers (incorrectly) use the term
>to embrace the network data model (Codasyl) as well.
>
>I was never a fan of hierarchical databases myself (I worked extensively
>with Codasyl databases) but the statement that "redundancy cannot be
>avoided" is quite wrong. I've just been re-reading the relevant chapter
>from Tsichritzis and Lochovsky's "Data Models" (1982) which has an
>extensive discussion of the various techniques developed by vendors and
>users to support m:n relationships without redundancy: the most
>comprehensive solution being "spanning trees" which allowed multiple
>hierarchic views over the same data records. And although "foreign keys"
>were not part of the model, they were widely used in practice at the
>application level (just as they are in XML). The solutions seem rather
>ad-hoc (I said I'm not a fan), but it's quite wrong to say that they
>don't exist.
>
>It would actually do us no harm as a community to relearn some of this
>stuff. XML is hierarchical for a very good reason: it is optimized for
>data interchange. Data that is sent from A to B has to be encoded as a
>sequence of bits, and hierarchies lend themselves well to such
>serialization. This absolutely gives you a design challenge because the
>models that you get from your data analysis are graphs rather than
>trees. We certainly need a much more mature understanding of the
>methodology of translating between the graph object models that come out
>of data analysis and the hierarchic representation of these models as
>XML, and I would love to see something that gives you the ability to get
>multiple hierarchic XML views over the same network data model.
>
>Michael Kay
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

• References:
  • RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
  • RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Next by Date: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Previous by thread: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Next by thread: Re: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread