On 6/10/07, Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The thought that XML is a "data model" on > par with the relational model is rather laughable.
Actually, that's not laughable at all; there's plenty of XML schemas that offer just as flexible and complex models as the typical "relational model", where both RDF-XML and XTM (Topic Maps) come to mind. Of course all this depends on what you mean by "on par", but your first paragraph does talk about *models*. One thing that is a *huge* advantage of the shift into XML is that it put an emphasis on conceptual data modelling onto people who normally wouldn't do it, certainly for people who care about both interchange *and* sane backend data models. > XML is about > interchange, it says nothing about data management. XML is about more than that (modelling, representation, creation, peristance, whatever you want, really), but does interchange quite well, of course. > Yet I do see some > misunderstandings and desires to redo enterprise modeling efforts, this > time with XML Schema. (shudder) If your enterprise modelling efforts suck, why shouldn't you redo them, even with XML Schema if you're comfortable in it? > The SemWeb's OWL & RDF seem to be much more relational, "Much more?" Can you think of a single model you can do in your RDB which I can't do in RDF or Topic Maps? I think you'd be hard pressed. I do understand the argument about data management, though, but that's tooling. :) Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
