Re: SV: First reflections
Kimbro Staken wrote: > > My concern with an XML syntax is that it becomes extremely verbose and > difficult to write by hand. The beauty of SQL is that the syntax is very > compact and you don't get that with an XML syntax language. Just compare the > standard Quilt syntax to its XML mapping to see this. I think the key here > is tool support. If the language encourages the easy development of robust > tools then the need for having a compact easy to type language is less > important. An XML syntax would probably encourage this. So the question is > should an XML update language be written using XML? There is a role for both XML syntax and other syntax XML Update languages. The role for an XML syntax is that XML software can easily produce an updategram. When I have used XSLT code to 'write' SQL, there is a general need to first create an XML representation of SQL, so the XML Update language reflects this form. > Or is a Quilt like > approach more appropriate? What I mean by that is that Quilt was not > designed as an XML syntax language but is simply mapped into XML as needed. > And other applications render themselves more naturally to Quilt syntax. I'd like to see both and let the market decide which, if either, become more popular. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
Re: SV: First reflections
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:13:53 -0700 "Kimbro Staken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My concern with an XML syntax is that it becomes extremely verbose and > difficult to write by hand. Definitely! But this is the nature of XML. I think that the verbosity of an XML-based XML update language is not that big problem unless you want to use this update language to store this 'document' as the difference of two other documents and this diff document is 10 times large then the original documents. (for example for versioning) > The beauty of SQL is that the syntax is very compact and you don't get > that with an XML syntax language. > Just compare the standard Quilt syntax to its XML mapping to see this. Good example. ;-) > I think the key here is tool support. +1 > If the language encourages the easy development of robust > tools then the need for having a compact easy to type language is less > important. An XML syntax would probably encourage this. So the question is > should an XML update language be written using XML? +1 > Or is a Quilt like > approach more appropriate? What I mean by that is that Quilt was not > designed as an XML syntax language but is simply mapped into XML as needed. What do others think? Lars -- ___ Lars Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] XML:DB Initiative http://www.xmldb.org -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
Re: SV: First reflections
>I am not posing a question, the point I am trying to make is that if you are >making an update-format (or even a query-format) it should be based entirely >on the xml-view (documents and XSLT). >If, as I have seen some suggest in the archives, you want to do something >more like SQL, then you should do straight SQL and nothing else. There has been no real determination on which direction the spec will take, though right now the tendancy seems to be to want an XML syntax. My concern with an XML syntax is that it becomes extremely verbose and difficult to write by hand. The beauty of SQL is that the syntax is very compact and you don't get that with an XML syntax language. Just compare the standard Quilt syntax to its XML mapping to see this. I think the key here is tool support. If the language encourages the easy development of robust tools then the need for having a compact easy to type language is less important. An XML syntax would probably encourage this. So the question is should an XML update language be written using XML? Or is a Quilt like approach more appropriate? What I mean by that is that Quilt was not designed as an XML syntax language but is simply mapped into XML as needed. >SQL is a real pain, but at least we are used to it. But please don't >transfer its strangeness into an xml-like format. >Tobe Kimbro Staken Chief Technology Officer dbXML Group L.L.C. http://www.dbxmlgroup.com -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
Re: SV: First reflections
Hi. On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:40:30 +0200 Gannholm Torbj_rn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel I must clarify my position on the conceptual equivalence of a node > and a field (or a row, or whatever). > Please note that I think the node and the xml-database is a better way > because it is more flexible with less trouble, but the fact is that we > sometimes encode metadata in a field, for example the single text-field > "contact" could be encoded as "type;value" like "phone;+46 920 259677" or > "email;[EMAIL PROTECTED]", which would then have to be > programatically split at those rare times when we need just the one value. > > So I still hold that as a user it is possible to view my data in whatever > way is more convenient for me. (Perhaps it is even my right?). > > Also this nice term metadata is in an xml-document just placed in a node > like everything else, sometimes in an attribute-node, sometimes in a > text-node. There is nothing that forces me to place metadata in an attribute > and "real" data in a "real" node, sometimes the mere presence of a node IS > my data. Honestly, I don't understand your problem/question! Is your question something like: Why use XML/XML-Database if we can do (more or less) the same with SQL/RDBMS? If so, this would end in a very general discussion. And I'm not sure if this list would be the right place for such discussions. Lars -- ___ Lars Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] XML:DB Initiative http://www.xmldb.org -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
