Re: Xquery might have some things right
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:57:37 -0600
Message-ID: <c24v9j$j21$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c0e3f26e.0403030402.2510647b_at_posting.google.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:<c23ic9$usb$1_at_news.netins.net>...
> > Are there XQuery fans on this list? --dawn
>
> Not many, but it does not surprise me that you are one of them.
You didn't read very well. I have more often critcized XQuery than applauded it and it is only in the last week that I decided to learn it better so that any criticisms had more knowledge at the base. It is then that I found a few gems and thought I'd pass them along.
> Look:
> a procedural way of querying a hierarchic database. What a great leap
> forward!
Ah, blinded by glasses you have been wearing for, perhaps, too long? You should rather think of it as a means of navigating di-graphs of data.
When both the data model and the data operators are represented as functions (which, by definition are relations), there are some gains we can make. Think of all of the work to be done in terms of
function(input)=output
If we represent all input and output as functions (such as ObjectFunction(referenceID) = objectdata), then there is only one type of data (for storage purposes, for example) -- FUNCTIONS! That's it -- you apply one function to another until you get the function to store or output in some other way.
smiles. --dawn Received on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 16:57:37 CET