• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
• Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:12:30 +1100

Hi All,

I recognized in CS 101 that a binary tree is just a table, skewed 45
degrees, a non-binary tree a sparse table, skewed 45 degrees. They are
abstractions of the *same* concept! Hence, it ought to be just as valid to
speak of XML tables, as XML trees.

Perhaps  a matrix-algebra mathematician can get around to having an
epiphany, and come up with the ..... "relational XML object model".

Possible, or pie-in-the-sky?

Cheerio,
Matt Bennett

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@e...>
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: "akmal @ city" <akmal@s...>
  • RE: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: "Martin Soukup" <martin@d...>

• Prev by Date: Problematical scenarios
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Previous by thread: Problematical scenarios
• Next by thread: RE: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread