Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
--- Ken North <kennorth@s...> wrote: > >> Better to choose a container that fits the shape > of your data. > > What comes to mind is the hierarchical organization > of the COBOL Data Division, > with COBOL writing to an ISAM or IMS container. > Hmmm... > > Selecting a physical data model that matches the > nature of the data is a classic > solution, but there are other schools of thought > (such as separating the logical > and physical model). In general, though, this means using higher level abstractions at higher level, but trying to avoid impedance (ie. using abstraction(s) compatible enough with the physical model). As such, I do not think that anyone would deliberately want to use hierarchic and relational (or OO/hierarchy, OO/relational) models in such away, from pure modelling perspective. It's usually only done when there are different use cases that are perceived to be better served by using different models (legacy systems only accessing Oracle, newer system using XQuery). -+ Tatu +- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
|
