Re: XQuery question
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:30:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CmPwa.5$MU1.53_at_news.oracle.com>
"Sebastian Schaffert" <schaffer_at_informatik.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message news:b9vvpd$hjc$1_at_minotaurus.cip.informatik.uni-muenchen.de...
> I repeat it, I am NOT claiming that XQuery is good. I am claiming that
> an inherently tree or graph-shaped data representation language is often
> superior to flat relational tuples. I do NOT say that XML is a
> particularly good representation for tree- or graph-shaped data (Lisp
> S-expressions would achieve the same). However, XML is well
> standardized, it has a broad community and despite its deficiencies
> (like DTD, processing instructions, unfortunate link mechanisms, etc) is
> a reasonably good representation for such data.
Sorry, not convincing. Why is that tree model fits "naturally" into XML, but graph model doesn't? Or XMP propellerheads do think that they can handle graphs too? Could you easily solve graph problems in XML? Find the shortest path in a graph, for example?
If I want to learn about graphs, I'll grab a Graph Theory book. It described Matrices, Cuts, Flows, Graph Spectra etc. First Order Logic has little to do with this area. Neither XML. A suggestion that some sloppy tag manipulation is a superior technique that naturally embrace hierarchical structures is just hillarious. Received on Thu May 15 2003 - 18:30:09 CEST