Re: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces

"Alan" <not.me_at_uhuh.rcn.com> wrote in message news:bNRvc.20451$bD4.12218_at_nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c9ondp$ev7$1_at_news.netins.net...
>
> > I don't think it will take that. I think it is in the wind already.
> SQL92
> > still rules in the SQL world and I don't know that subsequent versions
> will
> > take off. ODBC has been shut down for enhancements for several years.
> > XQuery, whatever you think of it, has Microsoft and IBM on board.
Seeing
> > the data the way that XML sees it (not said precisely, I'll admit) is
> > stirring up trouble for the relational model even if the politically
> correct
> > thing to say is that XML has nothing to do with DBMS's, just with data
> > exchange. Programmers are writing in OO languages or VB (with a little
> > COBOL still making a dent) and none of these languages thinks in
> relations.
> > The wind is blowing and the storm is getting closer.
>
> Oracle now supports XML natively in the database. Well, they say it's
> native. It's not, but that's okay. No one uses it in Oracle anyway. I keep
> reading that XML is coming. For the most part, it isn't- at least not yet.
> Show me some jobs requiring XML knowledge.

None of them require the knowledge, but everyone seems to be "doing it" -- often just replacing comma-quote as the means of passing data, sometimes without a dtd or xml schema.

> By the time it comes around,
> something else will be taking its place. Relational is as entrenched now
as
> COBOL once was.

More precisely, SQL is now ... as COBOL.

> We have lots of VB, PowerBuilder, Progress, .NET and other
> OO code, and guess what- they all are used with Oracle. COBOL is still in
> use in our shop, but will be gone within the next 3 years. Relational will
> be around for quite a while.
>
> > >
> > > Contact me directly. I may have a spare.
> >
> > Rats -- based on your recommendation (along with reading a few others) I
> > ordered a used one from amazon minutes before I read your offer. I
needed
> > some summer beach reading anyway.
>
> Oh, well... Did you get 3rd or 4th Ed?

I looked up the most recent edition and, rats, I picked the least expensive used book and it is a 3rd edition, I think (not clear). Dang -- I wasn't careful enough on that one -- I REALLY need some caffeine! --dawn Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 05:37:41 CEST