• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: XML and the Relational Model
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: frank@b...
• In-reply-to: <1061910312.21620.29.camel@frank>

--- Frank <frank@b...> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:18, lbradshaw@d...
> wrote:

> 
> Oh and for what it's worth, I have plenty of
> anecdotal information that
> bibliographic metadata was a very hard problem for
> the relational model.
> It may have been solved in the last few years, but
> it was still a
> storage-eating performance killer ten years after
> the RM was the 'best
> practice' for 'widgets in warehouses.'

Is there any chance that someone could elaborate? 
I've heard that there are lots of these anecdotes, but
I don't know any details. 

Certainly a straightforward normalization of a serious
document-oriented schema such as DocBook would lead to
a nightmarish number of tables, but I'm not clear
offhand on why normalizing just the metadata would be
such a problem.  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: XML and the Relational Model
    • From: Frank <frank@t...>
  • Re: Re: XML and the Relational Model
    • From: Frank <frank@t...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: XML and the Relational Model
    • From: Frank <frank@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Next by Date: RE: Re: XML and the Relational Model
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: XML and the Relational Model
• Next by thread: Re: Re: XML and the Relational Model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread