Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 12:20 PM 8/25/2003, lbradshaw@d... wrote: >What I mean by that is that XML directly and without interpretation or >external normalization has not been show AFAIK to support RM by any proof >or case. > >Of course XML can be normalized into RM. But that does not mean that RM >can be normalized into XML, as some have said to my face, and with whom I >disagreed. I'm not sure what you are saying. Clearly, any relational database can be modeled as XML - for instance, you can use the mappings defined by the SQL/XML portion of SQL 2003. When this data is modeled as XML, it is represented in the XML model, not in the relational model. Relational data can be mapped into XML or viewed as XML, and there are various ways of mapping XML into relational data, but each model is its own universe, with its own logic. >Ergo the discussion. > >Reconciliation? You mean so that RM is the same as a Tree Model, and vice >versa? I suppose a translation or interpretive method can be done, but >that does not make RM native to the Tree Model, or vice versa. Of course not. Every model is a universe unto itself. Computer Science allows more than one model. Mappings among models are useful. Jonathan
|
