xsdb better than RSS, RDF, XQuery, XPath, and XSLT most of the time ;)

Discussion in 'XML' started by aaronwmail-usenet@yahoo.com, Dec 21, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Hi folks,

    Please have a look at my proof of concept data aggregation/publication
    methodology

    http://xsdb.sourceforge.net

    >From an XML perspective it is intended to be more appropriate

    and simpler to use for common database-style uses than RSS, RDF,
    XQuery, XPath, and XSLT.

    I suspect readers of this list will have some thoughts about
    it(constructive, I hope).

    Thanks, -- Aaron Watters
    Haunted by the ghost of Christmas presents.

    Ps: I say "proof of concept" but I think the implementation may be
    usable for non-huge problems.
     
    , Dec 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andy Dingley Guest

    On 21 Dec 2004 06:39:30 -0800, wrote:

    >Please have a look at my proof of concept data aggregation/publication
    >methodology


    You need to understand what RDF and XQuery do before you waste any
    more time. (You really had me worried when you posted this as
    "Aaron" !)

    Statements like "xsdb better than RSS," are guaranteed to get people's
    backs up, especially when your goals statement already makes the (far
    more reasonable) claim, "These formats are designed to "integrate a
    variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide
    directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and
    content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML
    as an interchange syntax.""

    And the triviality of your model theory caused a humurous
    coffee/monitor interfacing issue (thanks for at least addressing the
    question though).
     
    Andy Dingley, Dec 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On 21 Dec 2004 06:39:30 -0800, wrote:
    >
    > >Please have a look at my proof of concept data

    aggregation/publication
    > >methodology

    >
    > You need to understand what RDF and XQuery do before you waste any
    > more time. (You really had me worried when you posted this as
    > "Aaron" !)


    Please explain. This comment is not helpful.

    > Statements like "xsdb better than RSS," are guaranteed to get

    people's
    > backs up, especially when your goals statement already makes the (far
    > more reasonable) claim, "These formats are designed to "integrate a
    > variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide
    > directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and
    > content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using

    XML
    > as an interchange syntax.""


    I was deliberatively inflammatory in the hopes of provoking
    discussion. Note the smiley. I claim that xsdb can do as well
    at "integrating a variety of applications..." with much greater
    simplicity and ease of use. It also provides a very flexible medium
    for providing xml-base database functionality.

    > And the triviality of your model theory caused a humurous
    > coffee/monitor interfacing issue (thanks for at least addressing the
    > question though).


    It's simple but general enough to capture everything needed, in
    particular all of SQL and more. What's wrong with simplicity?

    -- Aaron Watters

    [ps: my last post died, I hope this isn't a repeat :(]
    ===
    The cup holder on my computer is broken.
     
    , Dec 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Andy Dingley Guest

    On 22 Dec 2004 07:04:37 -0800, wrote:

    >> You need to understand what RDF and XQuery do before you waste any
    >> more time.


    >Could you expand please? RDF I really need help with, I agree.


    How simple do you want it ? You are reinventing great chunks of RDF.
    RDF itself had to reinvent these, because they were too complex to get
    right the first time. Now either learn from this, or reinvent you own
    wheel. I will be unsurprised if you can reinvent this wheel perfectly
    on your own, but neither will I believe that you've actually done it.

    If you haven't studied RDF before addressing this problem, it is not
    worth discussing it further with you. It shows an arrogant and
    ignorant attitude that you somehow don't need the work of many others.
    It also means that there's no scope or common terminology to discuss
    your solution to "the <foo> problem", or some other recognised issue.

    >XQuery is a [misguided?] attempt to unify SQL with XPATH or
    >something.


    I really hate it when people use a casual "or something" like that.

    No, XQuery does not represent an evolution of XPath. The other query
    approaches like Squish are even further away from it. The problem
    with XPath is that it's highly syntactically-driven -- it's based on
    using "XML as a simplifed SGML" rather than the more data-oriented
    view of XML-Infoset. If you want to progress further like that,
    towards triples, RDF, HyTime or whatever, then you must leave XPath
    far behind.

    So a comment of "XQuery is a [misguided?] attempt to unify SQL with
    XPATH or something." makes you look like an arrogant student who
    doesn't know what the competition is, but knows that the authors did
    it wrong.

    >Yes I was deliberatively inflamatory (note the smiley) in the hopes
    >that I'd get a reaction (guess it worked :) ).


    But you didn't get the reaction you hoped for.

    >The quote was taken from an RDF document. I have no idea what it means.


    OK, so you trolled me. Well done - I fell for it.

    You really don't know what RSS sets out to do do you ? Or why it's
    so incredibly narrow in scope that it has absolutely no overlap with
    what you're attempting to do, yet you still claim that "your way is
    better".

    >> And the triviality of your model theory


    OK, I'll say this as simply as I can:

    Half-a-dozen of the smartest people I've ever met spent around two
    years working out that same model theory. And you've gone and done it
    in about the same space as Fermat.




    --
    'Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Evesham wagn'nagl fhtagn'
     
    Andy Dingley, Dec 22, 2004
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. inquirydog
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    492
    Philippe Poulard
    Jul 20, 2004
  2. Stylus Studio
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    544
    Stylus Studio
    Oct 5, 2004
  3. Jeff Kish
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    394
    Tjerk Wolterink
    Oct 30, 2004
  4. Altova Announcements
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    456
  5. Jonathan Groll
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    323
    Kouhei Sutou
    Jun 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page