Nuno wrote: > There are a lot of benefits not related with > structuring information in XML: > > * Offers a better way to store and structure > information in files. > * Offers a better way to structure messages between > systems (SOAP). > * Offers a better way to structure information to be > shared by multiple systems (DocBook Schema, Dublin > Core, etc etc).
These are not examples of "structuring", since you use the word "structure" in each one? > This pretty much covers the most important benefits > of XML IMO. Nothing of this is related with modeling > a candidate to a fully structured model like most > metadata "objects" are. I understand the distinction between *schema definition* (logical description) and *representation* (physical manifestation). But, are they both not relevant in the issue of data "structure"? (Both logical and physical structure?) It still seems like XML has more degrees of freedom on both counts when compared to relational databases (along with some huge processing inefficiencies) as (in addition to your physical representation examples) you can have free-form data within XML that doesn't specifically reference fields in an XML schema definition (more "off-the-books" logical content), and you could never get away with that in a relational database. --charley [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise.
