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

From: Walter Mitty <>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:13:54 GMT
Message-ID: <6c%fm.1578$>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news: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!".
Thanks, but you're getting ahead of me. I wasn't really asking if it was a viable alternative to RM. Not yet. First I wanted to get clear on whether it's even a proposed alternative.
If it's not, and if it's just a machine representation, then there's really no point in comparing RM and XML. If it is a potential alternative to RM, then the next question one might ask is how it compares to RM. I'm not there yet.

> (Also, regarding data transmission, it's a pretty fat format.)
Received on Mon Aug 10 2009 - 22:13:54 CEST

Original text of this message