• To: "David Megginson" <dmeggin@a...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML: logical and/or physical model?
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:09:59 -0400
• References: <D7C51D33-B0AC-11D8-87B8-000A95CCC59E@x...> <40B75229.8010507@a...>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Megginson" <dmeggin@a...>
To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:52 AM


> Michael Champion wrote:
> 
> > As I understand it, it is the job of the RDBMS implementation to  
> > perform whatever mapping from the logical to physical world is needed  
> > to do this efficiently. [1]  Perhaps one  advantage of XML is that it  
> > just blows off this distinction -- it gets a lot of its practical power  
> > by 'modeling' relationships as *physical* containment of a set of  
> > elements (which of course may be subtrees) inside other elements.
> 
> I'd suggest a slightly different focus: the physical model is private while 
> the logical model is public.  XML is designed to handle the public, logical 
> part so that people can share information without being forced to use the 
> same physical models.

Maybe one could constrain this somewhat and say that XML is best suited to
handling a specific view of the logical model, rather than *representing*
an applications logical model.

Karl

• References:
  • XML: logical and/or physical model?
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XML: logical and/or physical model?
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML: logical and/or physical model?
• Next by Date: Re: XML: logical and/or physical model?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML: logical and/or physical model?
• Next by thread: Re: XML: logical and/or physical model?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread