Re: Modeling Data for XML instead of SQL-DBMS

David Cressey wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161778688.975810.241810_at_i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > David Cressey wrote:
> > > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1161775082.641612.23070_at_i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > mAsterdam wrote:
> > > > > <Annotations>
> > > > >
> > > > > dawn wrote:
> > > > > > If working on a software project where all data are persisted
> > > > > /persisted/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, we are talking software development on an island, not
> > > > > about shared data.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, we could assume that if it helps.
> > >
> > > If we assume that, then database theory becomes irrelevant.
> >
> > Your definition of database would be what then? --dawn
> >
> There's no need for me to post yet another definition of database in this
> ng. My
> previous comment stands.

OK, I looked up what I think is the most recent cdt glossary and it has this entry:
<glossaryEntry>
[Database]
  "A logically coherent collection of related real-world data   assembled for a specific purpose." -- rephrased from "Fundamentals of Database Systems", Elmasri & Navathe.

1. Deluxe file system
2. Shared databank (E. Codd)

</glossaryEntry>

So, I will agree that if you equate "shared databank" with "database" and you interpret shared to mean that it is shared by multiple companies (rather than simply multiple people or processes), then perhaps by def 2 this is not a database. But by pretty much any other definition this is a database. Given that, I would suggest it is definitely relevant to databases and data modeling. Agreed? --dawn Received on Wed Oct 25 2006 - 22:44:56 CEST