Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > ...What is the justification, then, for choosing a more > > complex, discredited data model for data exchange, when a majority of > > commonly used DBMSs employ a simpler, sounder and, thus, superior data > > model?' Note the assumption there: XML being used for highly regular information models. Yet I thought the real strength of XML was in situations where such regular models were atypical ... yes, folk from database-intensive worlds say there are few such situations, but that doesn't match my observation. Folk used to using an RDBMS as their hammer may view the world as a set of nail relations, post-normalization. I think it's got a lot more richness than that, actually ... :) > So IMO, if we're insulting people, I suggest that RDBMS are wonderfully > designed for beancounting, and that as soon as you try to start dealing > with the real world instead of making the world deal with your data > structures, an RDBMS doesn't look so wonderful. :)
|
