Re: foundations of relational theory?
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:40:08 -0500
Message-ID: <3526076.1067251208_at_dbforums.com>
Originally posted by Bob Badour
> "andrewst" <member14183_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message
> news:3524528.1067193300_at_dbforums.com"]news:3524528.1067193300_at_d-
> bforums.com[/url]...
> > Originally posted by Ross Ferris
> > > If the data were stored in a multi-valued database, or even an
> XML
> > > data store, then the redundant data could be removed.
> > >
> > <RESPONSE>
> > <SENTENCE>
> > <WORD>Right.</WORD>
> > <WORD>No</WORD>
> > <WORD>redundancy</WORD>
> > <WORD>in</WORD>
> > <WORD>XML</WORD>
> > <WORD>after</WORD>
> > <WORD>all</WORD>
> > <EMOTICON>;o)</EMOTICON>
> > </SENTENCE>
> > </RESPONSE>
>
> Just to pick a nit, I think the above should really be:
>
> <RESPONSE>
>
> <FRAGMENT>
>
> <WORD>Right.</WORD>
>
> </FRAGMENT>
>
> <FRAGMENT>
>
> <WORD>No</WORD>
>
> <WORD>redundancy</WORD>
>
> <WORD>in</WORD>
>
> <WORD>XML</WORD>
>
> <WORD>after</WORD>
>
> <WORD>all</WORD>
>
> <EMOTICON>;o)</EMOTICON>
>
> </FRAGMENT>
>
> </RESPONSE>
>
>
> or alternatively:
>
>
> <RESPONSE>
>
> <FRAGMENT>
>
> <WORD>Right.</WORD>
>
> </FRAGMENT>
>
> <SENTENCE>
>
>
> <WORD>is</WORD>
>
> <WORD>no</WORD>
>
> <WORD>redundancy</WORD>
>
> <WORD>in</WORD>
>
> <WORD>XML</WORD>
>
> <WORD>after</WORD>
>
> <WORD>all</WORD>
>
> <EMOTICON>;o)</EMOTICON>
>
> </SENTENCE>
>
> </RESPONSE>
I stand corrected! Actually I had wondered if I shouldn't have also done this for each word:
<WORD>
<LETTER><ROMAN>R</ROMAN></LETTER>
<LETTER><ROMAN>i</ROMAN></LETTER>
<LETTER><ROMAN>g</ROMAN></LETTER>
<LETTER><ROMAN>h</ROMAN></LETTER>
<LETTER><ROMAN>t</ROMAN></LETTER>
</WORD>
.. but decided I couln't be bothered.
-- Posted via http://dbforums.comReceived on Mon Oct 27 2003 - 11:40:08 CET