[Greg Woods]: >... conversations about XML and DTDs ... > ... > "well formed" by definition should mean in conformance to a > pre-existing DTD! > ... > Do you build relational databases without defining a schema?
Well, I wrote Perl-SQL, a relational database system that is self-schematizing - where every record can define its own schema, with its own fields. Motivation: schema changes in most existing relational databases are onerous. Even just adding fields is painful. Self-schematization allows new fields to be added on the fly, improving documentation of the experiment results that are my target data, because any observed features can be easily added to the schema in a structured way. As opposed to all of those database schemas that have a miscellaneous text or comment field, where far too often all the critical data that you wish to process lives. Self-schematization allows you to do all SQL operations across spontaneously added fields. --- 3-4 years ago I discussed self-schematization with Prof. David Dewitt, a man of some reknown in database circles. His take is that self-schematization was not done in the early days to save space, and that now it is not unreasonable to do so. However, rather than Perl-SQL, he pointed to me towards XML, saying something like "well formed SQL doesn't require a schema or DTD -- that is the future." --- I.e., Greg, not all RDBMS experts agree with you about schemas; ditto DTDs. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
