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

RE: Question for updating existing XML file

• To: "'Hunsberger, Peter'" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>, danny@d...
• Subject: RE: Question for updating existing XML file
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:49:27 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Yes, they do become an issue.  The more games we play 
with metametameta sources to generate applications via joins, 
the more the system starts to crawl.  

There are definitely tradeoffs among approaches that 
say "code fast and get something running" and those 
that say "model it all then implement it".  I don't 
want to restart that permathread, but an approach 
that unites triadic relations to objects and relational 
stores should sort that out.  Ontological lifecycles 
(versioning, etc.) have to be controlled if they 
are to be dynamic.     Jeff Heflin's paper at 

http://concept.cs.uah.edu/

takes up the topic.  Harry's paper is an informative 
read and mentions the Helsinki principles (ISO TR9007:1987).  
The Meme paper (ref'd yesterday) is very good although 
deep and long.

Good thread.  Again, there's a publication in this 
topic because hybrid systems seem to be a permanent 
aspect of the landscape.  I hope one of you takes 
the time to write it.

len


From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@S...]

He, he, yes, with sub-second response time.  

Joins do eventually become an issue, a couple of weeks ago, in a note to
myself about optimization I wrote:

"The joins across the system for the constant resolution of type data
are killing us.  [Big RDBMS vendors product] just can't keep the
precedence of the relationship structure straight WRT to the originating
query focus.  Why should it?  How should it know what we don't already
know? If we knew the relationships in advance the schema would be fixed
instead of dynamic!"

That (and some discussions on xml-dev) is partly what lead me to a
triples model in a relational database: we were joining for relationship
type instead of explicitly modeling them in the first place.

<snip>Danny's responses -- see my other reply to him</snip>

• Prev by Date: RE: XSLT vs RuleML (WAS RE: Question for updating existing XML file)
• Next by Date: RE: Question for updating existing XML file
• Previous by thread: RE: Question for updating existing XML file
• Next by thread: RE: Question for updating existing XML file
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread