Re: Xquery might have some things right

From: Eric Kaun <ekaun_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:56:33 GMT
Message-ID: <5KM1c.21042$hd.9125_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c24v9j$j21$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:c0e3f26e.0403030402.2510647b_at_posting.google.com...
> > 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.

Why navigate? That implies knowing too much about the graph's structure. Relations are different - you say what you want.

> 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.

So why do you program in Java and use XML? Lisp and S-expressions are sufficient.

  • erk
Received on Thu Mar 04 2004 - 21:56:33 CET

Original text of this message