• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:42:25 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <E18oMGa-0005t3-00@m...> <p04330102ba83b5f45841@[192.168.254.4]> <02ff01c2e14f$9d880bc0$6401a8c0@tbp1> <3E630C7D.7080906@t...> <15971.20891.679398.75447@m...>

David Megginson wrote:

> I do believe that it would be useful to have a middle-level data layer
> (say, "XDL") on top of XML.  That layer could enforce both restrictions (no
> mixed content) and more abstract, data-specific conventions (such as
> typing, if it were actually a good idea).  Other data oriented specs could
> be built on top of it.

This seems like the converse of XQuery:  i.e., instead of an XML view over a
relational database, an application-specific mapping for instantiating the
parse of an XML instance to a relational schema. Being application specific,
such a layer would be clearly abstracted from the particular XML instances
which, upon parsing would be mapped from their native taxonomy of
provenance/structure/name to the relational view/table/column.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Next by Date: Re: COLAG Version 2.0
• Previous by thread: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Next by thread: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread