Re: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces

From: x <x-false_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:46:58 +0300
Message-ID: <40bf6328$1@post.usenet.com>

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c9ni4h$ial$1_at_news.netins.net...

> "x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:40bef890_at_post.usenet.com...

> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9m55r$k99$1_at_news.netins.net...

> <snip>

> > Hierarchical namespaces tend to be dependent on the applications.
> > Hierarchical namespaces tend to classify *things*.
> > We need a method general enough to deal with any kind of facts.
> > But I agree that "labeling" is one of the human abilities.

>
> The entire logical model is interwoven with the applications (such as
> mountain man) with namespaces being no different.  We separate out root
> nodes for namespaces based on different companies or subsidiaries or
> divisions.

> Why do we have different rules for namespaces depending on where they are in

> the namespace tree?  Is there any logic to that?  Associate with any
> relation name the same things you associate with a schema (root namespace)
> and you have a more elegant structure, it seems (by being consistent).

XML

> permits relations nested to any level.  There is a point where it becomes
> confusing semantically (that's where some products cut off the hierarchy)
> but it surely is not at the level of relations.  Permitting relations

within
> any namespace (including within a relation) seems reasonable.

What namespaces have to do with nested relations ? A nested relation is a nested "structure" not just nested names.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 12:46:58 CDT