• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:08:55 -0500

Agree but that isn't the way it was presented. 
I almost wrote "each table is treated like a 
subdoc" but realized that most people don't get
that.

Still, what one gets is tablename.columnname 
instead of 

http://www.something.com/dontDereference/:name

and the trouble starts when the mysterious and 
very overloaded uRthing has a findItSomewhere 
but don't dereference this to get it semantic.

So I'm still left wondering which of the 
notSoSimpleItTurnsOut things we Dare To Do Less of.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

 From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
 

> You said it most succinctly here:
> 
> David Hunter:  "There is no problem, from the database, telling which
"name"
> is which, because
> each is in it's own table."
> 
> Isn't that the same as saying a table is an element?
 
No, it is saying that each table is a namespace.  

• Prev by Date: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Next by Date: Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Previous by thread: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Next by thread: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread