Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer

From: paul c <>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:31:50 GMT
Message-ID: <aFdVk.1878$jr4.1295_at_edtnps82>

David BL wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:20 am, paul c <> wrote:

>> whileone wrote:

>>> Yes, forum "topic headings" are ordered by date and
>>> time.  But each topic also has 0 or more child responses, and child
>>> responses might
>>> be responses to responses, rather than responses to topic headings.
>>> That's a tree
>>> (a root node with nested children).  And a tree is a hierarchy.  You
>>> do need all those
>>> parent/child relationships.
>> Believe that if you want but there is no guarantee in any forum I've
>> ever seen that response n, quoting response n-1, has any relationship to
>> say, response n-2, or vice-versa.  It might be seen as some kind of
>> graph but not necessarily a tree.

> If every post apart from the first post for a topic is made in
> response to a previously existing post then inevitably it is possible
> to define a tree structure.
> Are you suggesting:
> 1) that isn't actually the case;
> 2) a post shouldn't actually be regarded as a response to some
> previous post; or
> 3) the tree structure can be defined but isn't necessarily
> pertinent?

3). - Traditionally, most email and news programs have rolled their own file structure with a point of view that sprang from a pet programming language and whatever OS file support was available, ignoring the possibility of Codd's approach which emphasized the structure of data as the central focus, especially his information principle and the relation as the basic programming interface and, dare I say, his rather universal operators. The result is that most mail servers and readers have extremely arcane programming operators and probably don't offer the ability to manipulate more than a few of the many tags that have been defined in the rfc's. 1) and 2) are simply possibly aspects for end users. Received on Thu Nov 20 2008 - 14:31:50 CET

Original text of this message