• To: "Jeff Lowery" <Jeff.Lowery@c...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XML and the Relational Model (was Re: A standard approach to glueing together ...)
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@s...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:15:19 -0500
• Thread-index: AcNsxftb1ejqFwVcQveMfIUYsynxVwAAG3cA
• Thread-topic: XML and the Relational Model (was Re: A standard approach to glueing together ...)

Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...> writes:

> > I'd propose that an XPath statement in general can be 
> considered the 
> > XML equivalent to a view...
> 
> I'd propose that an XML document can be considered equivalent 
> to a domain-optimized storage format for a relational 
> front-end, provided that said document is information rich 
> enough to fully support relational operations.

Jeff, this seems an orthogonal concern to what was being responded to?
The issue (at that point) had little to do with support of relational
operations.  Rather, the question was (or seemed to be), what was the
equivalent of some relational concepts in the XML world???

In any case, it seems you're stating: a document is equivalent to a
relational store if the document has enough information to be equivalent
to a relational store...  Not quite sure what that gains us?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML and the Relational Model (was Re: A standard approach to glueing together ...)
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML and the Relational Model (was Re: A standard approach to glueing together ...)
• Next by Date: RE: G. Orwell (was: xml taxonomy)
• Previous by thread: RE: XML and the Relational Model (was Re: A standard approach to glueing together ...)
• Next by thread: RE: XML and the Relational Model (was Re: A standard approach to glueing together ...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread