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

Re: XML vs relational database

• From: Jim Melton <jim.melton@a...>
• To: "Ken North" <kennorth@s...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:40:19 -0600

Ken,

You need not feel surprised ;^)  There have been monumental battles 
along the way, but we are learning how to play better with one another.

Len, as you know, I work for a company founded on and based on SQL, 
and I may be prejudiced.  But that doesn't mean that I'm blind.  I am 
a great proponent of helping integrate all sorts of technologies into 
the SQL environment -- as long as it is meaningful and useful to 
those annoyances that pay my salary...customers.  That's why I 
participated so actively in the development of ORDBMS (adding object 
capabilities to SQL) in the 1992 - 1999 timeframe, and why I have 
been so passionate about adding the XML type and XQuery integration 
into SQL starting in about 2001 or 2002.

But you won't find me claiming that SQL does everything.  And I 
especially won't be accused of saying that SQL is a superb nested-set 
language.  Yeah, it can do nested sets, and some of the SQL storage 
engines are really good at dealing with that, but the language isn't 
especially strong in nested-set expressivity.  It's significantly 
worse at handling arbitrary tree structures, which is why we 
integrated XQuery into SQL/XML instead of trying to train SQL itself 
to do the job.

Hope this helps,
    Jim

At 8/16/2007 03:47 PM, Ken North wrote:
> >> We wouldn't have anything.  The outcry would have been "SQL does 
> all of that
> >> already".  If the counter arguments had been one metalevel above 
> the current
> >> understanding of the hordes of commenting parties, the political battle
> >> would have been over right there.
>
>Let's distinguish between the storage engine used for an SQL product and the
>query language itself. Even though the storage engine of an SQL product might
>handle nested sets, the SQL query language of that era wasn't powerful enough
>for a reasonable person to argue "SQL does all of that already". Capabilities
>such as XML schema mapping or using a DTD or schema to validate query results
>were beyond the scope of the SQL language of that time.
>
>It would surprise me if Jim Melton feels updating the standard from SQL-92 to
>SQL/XML has been a slam dunk.

========================================================================
Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
   Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor    Fax : +1.801.942.3345
Oracle Corporation        Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
1930 Viscounti Drive      Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA          Personal email: jim at melton dot name
========================================================================
=  Facts are facts.   But any opinions expressed are the opinions      =
=  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
=  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =
======================================================================== 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML vs relational database
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>

• References:
  • RE: XML vs relational database
    • From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
  • Re: XML vs relational database
    • From: "Ken North" <kennorth@s...>