Re: Modeling Data for XML instead of SQL-DBMS

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1161863476.352229.292860_at_i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1161809096.025872.244220_at_i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > I don't recall ever saying that it had to be shared among multiple
> > companies.
> >
> > I do think that, in order for database theory to be relevant, it has to
be
> > shared among multiple partners. Those partners could all be in the same
> > company, or they could be in different companies. They could be using
the
> > same programming language, or different programming languages. They
could
> > be accountable to the same management, or they could be accountable to
> > different managements. The point is that they are sharing data, and
they
> > aren't all under "our control" (to quote the phrase you used elsewhere
in
> > this discussion.)

>

As far as I'm concerned, there was nothing to clear up, except perhaps for the word "our".

If the data and its model is all under YOUR control, then database theory is irrelevant to your question.
My prior comment stands.

If it's all under MY control, you can bet it's not going to be stored in XML. Received on Thu Oct 26 2006 - 21:34:59 CEST