Re: Modeling Data for XML instead of SQL-DBMS

From: dawn <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com>
Date: 26 Oct 2006 04:51:16 -0700
Message-ID: <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 Received on Thu Oct 26 2006 - 13:51:16 CEST

Original text of this message