Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer

paul c wrote:

>rpost wrote:
>...
>> Yes, and my specific question was: how would you deal with the requirement
>> that messages can be replies to specific other messages, or do you deny
>> that requirement?
>> ...
>
>When you talk of "replies to replies", as you have done in this thread,
>it makes me think that nothing I can say will cause you to think more
>precisely, which is what is needed.

It would help focus discussions if you could bring yourself to omit stuff like this. It tempts me to comment on its accuracy, which is not what this newsgroup is for.

> Clearly there are messages that
>arise that aren't replies. Clearly there are replies to such messages.
>If you want replies to replies, then you are actually talking about
>replies to replies to such messages.

Yes, and replies to replies to replies to replies to ... to replies to such messages. That's how discussion fora, including USENET, work.

> Obviously there are least three
>predicates here.

No, two will do: message and reply, where reply is-a message (i.e. same primary key with a dependency key(reply) \subseteq key(message)).

An auxiliary predicate may be used to keep reply's transitive closure.

>If you are "in the trees", I invite you to try to put
>all three in one hierarchy, but I don't think I want you to show me the
>result3.

I don't understand this remark.

-- 
Reinier