Re: Do Data Models Need to built on a Mathematical Concept?

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0304300156.6c768f49_at_posting.google.com...
> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<b8ljga$383i$2_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...
> > "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> > news:Lmora.661321$3D1.366931_at_sccrnsc01...
> > [snip]
> > > Imagine a binary, relational version of XML built on the relational model.
>
> It would be VERY different from XML.
>
> I can imagine data exchange using a binary Tutorial D version.

Hmmm. I don't recall that Tutorial D has much to say about data exchange or formatting. But I perhaps you mean D-style (vs. SQL-style) tables? That's what I was suggesting.

> > Ah, but then we would all have to agree on a standardised relational catalog
> > database model
>
> A standardised catalog would be a good thing, but I don't see the need.
>
> Can you elaborate?

If we are to have stardardized interchange, we have to be able to exchange semantic data (schema) as well as the base data. For example, if I ship you some tables, you might want to manipulate them and send them back. If that happens, you'd probably like to be able to do some validation on your side before sending them. You can't do that unless you know the domains, the foreign keys, the constraints, etc.

Marshall Received on Wed Apr 30 2003 - 17:47:09 CEST