Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:07:18 GMT
Message-ID: <aqRxe.136262$X86.7247910@phobos.telenet-ops.be>


VC wrote:

> "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message 
> news:CwAxe.135730$_81.6969472_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> 

>>VC wrote:
>>
>>>How is it different ? Is it not just a notation for trees (with a lot of
>>>other baggage admittedly) ?
>>
>>Yes, ordered, node-labeled trees, whereas the other two are more about
>>graphs.

>
> Sorry to state the trivial but a tree *is* a graph (a rooted tree is a DAG).

Of course, but not evere graph is a tree. So XML could at best be seen as a restricted version of the others, and restrictions can severly change the nature of data models. Besides, I said *ordered* trees, and, yes, that matters.

Received on Sun Jul 03 2005 - 08:07:18 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US