• To: <johns@s...>,"'Ronald Bourret'" <rpbourret@r...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Normalizing XML [was: XML information modeling best practices]
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:02:56 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <006a01c1f09c$ececf080$e6d4fea9@s...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> Codd and Date would say (I know, I'm putting words in their
> mouths, but
> maybe Date will see this and tell me if I'm wrong) that it makes no
> difference to the design of the database whether the data, when
> manipulated, is represented as XML or anything else.
>
I think Date (if I recall his books correctly) would probably agree with the
conventional wisdom that there are three stages of database design:
information modelling, logical design, and physical design. Information
modelling is certainly independent of whether you use relations, objects, or
XML. Mapping the conceptual model to XML schemas is logical design, and is
very XML-specific. Designing indexes, allocating storage, and so on is
physical design, and is very product-specific.

You seem to be using the word "design" to mean only the first of these three
stages.

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@n...
work: Michael.Kay@s...

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Normalizing XML [was: XML information modeling best practices]
    • From: "John F Schlesinger" <johns@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Normalizing XML [was: XML information modeling best practices]
• Next by Date: RE: What is RDF for? (Was: What are Web Services for?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Normalizing XML [was: XML information modeling best practices]
• Next by thread: RE: Normalizing XML [was: XML information modeling best practices]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread