Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer

From: Keith H Duggar <>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 3, 6:02 pm, Keith H Duggar <> wrote:
> On Nov 10 2008, 9:17 am, salmobytes <> wrote:
> > I'm thinking about starting a hobby project.
> > I wrote a files-based Bulletin Board years ago.
> > I'd like to convert it to a more database-like system, so
> > password-identified users could edit old posts.
> > Forums are inherently hierarchical
> Discussions that evolve in forums are in fact not hierarchal.
> Claims that they are arise, I believe, chiefly from a lack of
> imagination and brainwashing by current interfaces.
> For example, one often finds the need to respond, with one
> post, to many prior posts across multiple levels in a typical
> hierarchal view such as the "tree" view Google groups creates.
> That is what I am doing write now. This paragraph responds to
> several posts at different levels in the google tree that all
> claim forums are hierarchies. However, since google provides
> the capability to "reply" to but a single message I had to
> choose one thus perpetuating this false structuring.
> What's more, a forum post may respond to content from
> other forum topics, other forums or even entirely different
> sources such as articles, emails, books, television, etc.
> Even more amusing is that posts can actually preemptively
> respond to posts from the future! This most often happens
> when ignorant or lazy or time constrained or just plain
> stupid participants blurt out their two cents without having
> comprehended or read or cared (respectively) about said prior
> post that already address their belched vociferous reply.
> Furthermore, different parts of single post may reply to
> different subsets of prior posts, topics, forums, external,
> or future sources. Likewise those parts may respond only
> to parts of said sources.
> Thus, often in a general and very useful sense a post does
> not have a "parent" post in the narrow sense of a hierarchal
> tree as some have claimed here.
> To improve the design flaws or your (and most or all other
> forums) I would humbly (because am and certainly not expert
> enough to claim this as a very "good" set of requirements)
> suggest that you aim to achieve at least the following:
> Phase 1 : Basic
>    For every post the ability to:
>    1) refer to multiple posts (including THIS post and
>       posts in other threads and forums)
>    2) refer to external sources
>    3) denote that a referent REPLIES to a referent
> Phase 2 : Content Parts
>    For arbitrary parts of posts the ability to:
>    4) refer to multiple arbitrary parts of multiple posts
> Phase 3 : Temporal Correction
>    For arbitrary content parts the ability to
>    5) edit the content part to add or remove referents
> Phase 4 : Semantic Enrichment
>    6) In addition to the basic REPLIES, the ability to
>       denote that a referent SUPPORTS, DISPUTES, REBUTS,
>       referent (possibility including THIS).
> I think you would find that the above far more advanced forum
> fits nicely into a relational model and would support more
> efficient and productive discussion. For example, imagine how
> much easier it would be to refute a vociferous ignoramus when
> they continue to repeat the same bullshit. You can simply edit
> one of your prior responses adding a CALLS-UTTER-BULLSHIT
> reference to their latest post and immediately it could appear
> in various forum views.
Since none of salmonbytes, whileone, BS, etc have any response I can only surmise that they now realize a forum discussion is in fact not a hierarchy. Glad I could help.

KHD Received on Mon Jan 05 2009 - 21:54:30 CST

Original text of this message