• To: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...>,"Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?
• From: Dan Vint <dvint@d...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:30:42 -0700
• In-reply-to: <BAE415CEAA831548800F68C44E905AF5035A721A@R...>
• References: <BAE415CEAA831548800F68C44E905AF5035A721A@R...>

At 12:49 PM 9/29/2005, Michael Rys wrote:
>In general the problem you are looking at is the general data modeling 
>question: How close does your logical design (the XML structure in your 
>store) be coupled with your conceptual design (the XML structure as seen 
>by the consumer of the data). Many of the comments you make below are 
>appropriate and are closely related to the questions of relational data vs 
>XML data and relational normalizations vs denormalizations.

I'd take this a little further to say, "What is the purpose of the XML 
being designed?". It is implied in the description of moving a picker that 
I'm removing an old entry and creating a new one. Is my XML supposed to be 
the data base or is a report of the current status of pickers. As a report, 
all the work is done in the application and just output. If my XML is the 
database and it drives the associated applications, then I might do 
something different.

..dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Vint

Specializing in Panoramic Images of California and the West
http://www.dvint.com

voice: 510-522-4703


     

• References:
  • RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?
    • From: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?
• Next by Date: Re: Help needed in namespaces!
• Previous by thread: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?
• Next by thread: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread