Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

>
> Yes. I''d suggest that in spite of the efforts of SQL-3, we really do
> have
> to ditch SQL to get to the next level with databases. I don' t know who
> is using the nested structures in Oracle (starting with 8i IIRC) or the
> parent-child inheritance with PostgreSQL, but I don't think that there is
> any massive movement in that direction in the SQL-DBMS world. I suspect
> that a move away from the 1NF of old will include a move away from SQL.
>
> Once XQuery includes update capabilities will that be the language on
> which
> to hang our collective hat? Right now I'd give it at least a 70% chance.
> That doesn't mean that SQL will go away (any more than COBOL has) but that
> new database implementations will use more flexible structures with an
> XQuery language, perhaps? Just thinking outloud. --dawn
>

Fascinating conjecture. XQuery has the requisites: its sexy and popular, has sexy and popular friends (XML et al), and is showing all of its promise. If it can query relational db's that contain hierarchical data then people would start to use it. I know I would immediately, to me the query language is just something to use to get data. My goodness the howls of protest we would hear!

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me