Re: Modeling Data for XML instead of SQL-DBMS

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:35:51 GMT
Message-ID: <bc00h.2506$6f4.635_at_trndny01>

"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.) Received on Thu Oct 26 2006 - 12:35:51 CEST