Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.netins.net!not-for-mail From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:07:13 -0500 Organization: netINS InterNetNews site Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <1dCdncVMDNCImuHcRVn-vA@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.120.93.7 X-Trace: news.netins.net 1098673639 22691 199.120.93.7 (25 Oct 2004 03:07:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@netins.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:07:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:27357 "robert" wrote in message news:da3c2186.0410241849.7eedc5ef@posting.google.com... > "Laconic2" wrote in message news:<1dCdncVMDNCImuHcRVn-vA@comcast.com>... > > "robert" wrote in message > > news:da3c2186.0410240956.76e4a5d1@posting.google.com... > > > if you can refute say, Pascal's, objections to XQuery (lots of other > > > thoughtful people have published on the futility of XML/XQuery, so you're > > > free to pick another); then i'll listen to this drivel. > > > > It's not drivel. It may or may not be wrong, but the person who wrote it is > > not a total fool. > > > > You can strengthen your argument without resorting to name calling. > > i made no reference to the poster, only to the statements in the post. You are right -- your response was not a B. Badour type of response and I'm certain that there are times I've written drivel in this forum, but I do try to be rational. However, I do appreciate that I now have knights in shining armor as they were rather silent in the BB days. ;-) > anyone else is welcome to refute Pascal, should they wish to. XQuery is > a bad imitation of IMS, as Pascal so exquisitely points out. I've written an extensive portfolio of IMS applications in my day and XQuery seems to me to be nothing like it from a language standpoint and XML has only minor similarities from a data model standpoint IMO. The one similarity is that graphs are permitted. IMS was written off by relational theorists by calling it Hierarchical and then claiming Relational was better. I have yet to find solid reasoning for writing off data graphs such as IMS (or WWW for that matter). When Pascal and others get to the point of calling something Hierarchical or "Network" databases, then they say things like "and it was proven long ago that those were poorer data models" or something like that. So, can you show me the proof, as in the Pythagorean theorm for your position? --dawn > those who > wish to champion a data model which the relational model replaced, and > did so *on purpose*, have the intellectual obligation to demonstrate > how they are correct. it's really not a matter of opinion, any more > than the Pythagorean theorem is 'opinion'.