Re: Modeling Data for XML instead of SQL-DBMS

David Cressey wrote:
> "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.)
> >
> > So, think of this as a database that is shared in a way that it IS all
> > under our control. Does that help clarify the question? --dawn
> >

>

>

>