SQL Server 2005

[Frank Cohen]

Hi Michael:

> Since I don't like to register to just comment on a blog, here is a
> quick comment:

Thanks for the feedback. I changed the XQueryNow.com site to allow  
anonymous comments.

> Your comment about that FOR XML is not good to manage XML data is
> correct, but also off the point: that's not its purpose...
>
> FOR XML is not meant to be used for managing XML data. It is meant to
> provide an effective and simple way to transform relational data into
> XML form.
>
> The XML data type and XQuery and XML-DML are meant for managing XML  
> data
> that is not relational in nature.

Good point and I agree with you about the purpose of the XML field  
type, XQuery and FOR XML commands being there to support XML in a  
relational model. I'll post this as a comment to the blog entry for  
other readers.

> You better look at the XML data type and the (at the moment only  
> subset)
> support of XQuery. Critique in that area would be much more  
> appropriate
> for this list and more useful.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm happy to offer a critique of using XML  
in a relational model and will post a critique to this list. I'm  
working on a performance and scalability study that among other  
things compares performance of native XML DB tools to relational  
tools that will back up a critique.

-Frank






On Jan 21, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Michael Rys wrote:

> Hi Frank
>
> Since I don't like to register to just comment on a blog, here is a
> quick comment:
>
> Your comment about that FOR XML is not good to manage XML data is
> correct, but also off the point: that's not its purpose...
>
> FOR XML is not meant to be used for managing XML data. It is meant to
> provide an effective and simple way to transform relational data into
> XML form.
>
> The XML data type and XQuery and XML-DML are meant for managing XML  
> data
> that is not relational in nature.
>
> You better look at the XML data type and the (at the moment only  
> subset)
> support of XQuery. Critique in that area would be much more  
> appropriate
> for this list and more useful.
>
> Thanks
> Michael
>
> Disclosure: I am the Program Manager for XML data type, XQuery and FOR
> XML in SQL Server 2005
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>> [mailto:http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk] On Behalf Of Frank Cohen
>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:58 AM
>> To: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>> Subject:  SQL Server 2005
>>
>> Maybe SQL Server 2005 has some new secret sauce for handling XML
>> data. I ran across Jerry Dixon's article in which he talks about the
>> new XML features. Jerry writes from a software developer perspective
>> that seems true: He likes the new XML features but uses them to
>> create XML, not to store XML.
>>
>> I blog about this at:
>>
>> http://www.xquerynow.com/cohensxblog/sql2005.html
>>
>> -Frank
>>
>> ---
>> Frank Cohen, Raining Data, http://www.RainingData.com, phone:
>> 408 236
>> 7604
>> http://www.xquerynow.com for free XML, XQuery and native XML
>> database
>> tips,
>> techniques and solutions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>