Re: WWW/Internet 2009: 2nd CFP until 21 September

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:02:07 GMT
Message-ID: <31%fm.38517$Db2.13143_at_edtnps83>



Walter Mitty wrote:
...
> So I return to my original question. Is XML simply a machine representation
> of data, or is it an alternative to the relational view of data? Another
> related question is, can you represent relational data in an XML document?
> Is anything gained or lost by doing so?

Since those originators admit that it isn't a universal format, that would eliminate it as an alternative to an RM, without even considering the other omissions. As for representation, that word suggests some agreement as to context/subject, so I would say it's not even a machine representation but rather a way record some agreed-upon tree and nothing more. If the xml people stepped up to the plate, they would need to specify its operations, which I suspect would be as idiosyncratic as those of IMS,IDS,IDMS etc. Instead they cop out with: "A program can then recognize this document as a customer order and do whatever it needs to do: display it one way or display it a different way or put it through a bookkeeping system or make a new shirt show up on your doorstep tomorrow." Ie., basically the anthropo-phrase, "whatever it needs to do" is valley-girl talk - the XML operations are "whatever!".

(Also, regarding data transmission, it's a pretty fat format.) Received on Mon Aug 10 2009 - 15:02:07 CDT

Original text of this message