Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Database Servers
DB2InformixIngresMS SQLOraclePervasive.SQLPostgreSQLProgressSybase
Desktop Databases
FileMakerFoxProMS AccessParadox
General
General DB TopicsDatabase Theory
Related Topics
Java Development.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentMore Topics ...

Database Forum / General DB Topics / DB Theory / November 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

XML storing and management

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
karsoods53 - 26 Sep 2007 13:16 GMT
I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
can store and manage this data?
JOG - 26 Sep 2007 14:53 GMT
> I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
> can store and manage this data?

This isn't really the right place for this sort of question - XML is
somewhat of an anathema to a database theory group.

Assuming that you have no choice however, when I have been forced to
deal with XML storage directly I have found Oracle tools to be
adequate..
Jan Hidders - 26 Sep 2007 16:04 GMT
> > I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> > have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
> > can store and manage this data?
>
> This isn't really the right place for this sort of question - XML is
> somewhat of an anathema to a database theory group.

You might want to inform the good people at database theory
conferences such as PODS and ICDT about this, because they seem to
differ somewhat. I have no doubt they will accept your authority in
these matters immediately. :-)

-- Jan Hidders
Bob Badour - 26 Sep 2007 16:11 GMT
>>>I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
>>>have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> -- Jan Hidders

Sigh. Such a waste of talent and resources.
paul c - 28 Sep 2007 03:51 GMT
>>>> I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
>>>> have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Sigh. Such a waste of talent and resources.

resources, maybe, assuming "talent" excludes inspiration!
thesaboteurs@gmail.com - 26 Sep 2007 19:29 GMT
> > > I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> > > have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> -- Jan Hidders

Heh, point taken. If only they would....
JOG - 27 Sep 2007 01:19 GMT
On Sep 26, 7:29 pm, thesabote...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> > > > have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Heh, point taken. If only they would....

Must start trying to remember i'm not the only person using google
groups in my house ;) Jim.

Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
Bob Badour - 27 Sep 2007 02:01 GMT
> On Sep 26, 7:29 pm, thesabote...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?

Hans Christian Andersen did an excellent piece on that very topic a
while back.
Jan Hidders - 27 Sep 2007 14:23 GMT
> Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?

It's all hype, of course.

Btw., what fundamental flaws?

-- Jan Hidders
Bob Badour - 27 Sep 2007 15:27 GMT
>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> -- Jan Hidders

Well, let's see... How about we start with: "The inability to re-order
the data without changing meaning and without destroying information." ?
Jan Hidders - 27 Sep 2007 17:44 GMT
> >>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> >>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Well, let's see... How about we start with: "The inability to re-order
> the data without changing meaning and without destroying information." ?

"Hierarchical models such as XML" are not necessarily ordered-only
data models. In fact most proposals for semistructured data models
before XML weren't.

But even in XML this is not a big problem. Whether reordering destroys
information or not depends on your interpretation of the data. If you
send me an XML document and in addition tell me that certain parts
represent sets then I can reorder them without destroying any
information. The fact that XML is an ordered data model only implies
that it *might* destroy informaton, not that it *must*. There are ways
to declare in languages such as XQuery that certain parts, or the
whole tree, or certain final or intermediate results should be
interpreted as unordered, so also that is not really a big or
fundamental problem.

Of course, I'm not claiming that it could not have been better. I'd
personally prefer it if there had been a standardized way of
indicating unorderedness and that this would have been taken into
account in query languages such as XQuery. But the fact is that up to
now neither the people that are using XQuery in practice nor the
people that are implementing XQuery have been listing this as their
prime concern. And you can theorize as much as you like, but it is
practice that decides whether something is really a fundamental or
inherent problem or not.

-- Jan Hidders
Bob Badour - 27 Sep 2007 18:07 GMT
>>>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
>>>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> information. The fact that XML is an ordered data model only implies
> that it *might* destroy informaton, not that it *must*.

That's a nit. If one cannot always safely reorder, then one cannot
safely reorder.

[snip]
Jan Hidders - 27 Sep 2007 21:40 GMT
> >>>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> >>>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> That's a nit. If one cannot always safely reorder, then one cannot
> safely reorder.

I thought we were having a serious discussion, not playing trivial
word games. My mistake.

-- Jan Hidders
Bob Badour - 27 Sep 2007 21:52 GMT
>>>>>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
>>>>>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> I thought we were having a serious discussion, not playing trivial
> word games. My mistake.

I am having a serious discussion. I am not the one picking at nits.

What your position boils down to is: XML is needlessly complex. As a
result of the needless complexity, one cannot re-order the data without
changing meaning and without destroying information. BUT if we add even
more complexity, we can sometimes re-order data. Sometimes.

Pretending the fundamental flaw went away doesn't make it go away.
Jan Hidders - 27 Sep 2007 22:29 GMT
> >>>>>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> >>>>>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> I am having a serious discussion. I am not the one picking at nits.

I disagree. I think you are.

> What your position boils down to is: XML is needlessly complex.

Not really. What I said is that concerning the aspect we were
discussing it is actually missing a construct. So my position is more
accurately described as that it is "too simple", not "too complex".

> As a
> result of the needless complexity, one cannot re-order the data without
> changing meaning and without destroying information.

That is too imprecise to be correct. You can in some sense always
reorder if you want to. What I said is that whether this loses
information or not is a matter of interpretation. Note by the way that
this is also true for the Relational Model: you cannot always
arbitrarily permute the atomic values in a relation without risking
changing its meaning. Also there it is a matter of interpretation
whether this is actually a problem or not.

> BUT if we add even
> more complexity, we can sometimes re-order data. Sometimes.

Yes, when it is appropriate, which is not always.

-- Jan Hidders
mAsterdam - 27 Sep 2007 23:36 GMT
Jan Hidders schreef:
> ... You can in some sense always
> reorder if you want to. What I said is that whether this loses
> information or not is a matter of interpretation. Note by the way that
> this is also true for the Relational Model: you cannot always
> arbitrarily permute the atomic values in a relation without risking
> changing its meaning.

Not sure I read this right.
Could you give an example / please elaborate?

> Also there it is a matter of interpretation
> whether this is actually a problem or not.
Bob Badour - 11 Nov 2007 16:44 GMT
>>>>>>>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
>>>>>>>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> I disagree. I think you are.

Suppose I said my pickup truck is no good for digging trenches. Your
position amounts to saying: "If you hooked up a hydraulic system and
welded a back-hoe on the back, it would dig trenches just fine."

One simply cannot re-order an arbitrary XML document without destroying
information. One can re-order any relation without ever destroying
information.

>>What your position boils down to is: XML is needlessly complex.
>
> Not really. What I said is that concerning the aspect we were
> discussing it is actually missing a construct. So my position is more
> accurately described as that it is "too simple", not "too complex".

Actually, it is both, but I will accept the above correction.

>>As a
>>result of the needless complexity, one cannot re-order the data without
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> reorder if you want to. What I said is that whether this loses
> information or not is a matter of interpretation.

So, if I reorder all of the children of several nodes immediately after
just one of those nodes, it's only a matter of interpretation whether
that changed the meaning?!? You are joking, right?

 Note by the way that
> this is also true for the Relational Model: you cannot always
> arbitrarily permute the atomic values in a relation without risking
> changing its meaning. Also there it is a matter of interpretation
> whether this is actually a problem or not.

Could you provide an example?

>>BUT if we add even
>>more complexity, we can sometimes re-order data. Sometimes.
>
> Yes, when it is appropriate, which is not always.

So, it's too complex but adding complexity will sometimes but not always
correct the problem. Sounds wonderful.
V.J. Kumar - 27 Sep 2007 18:33 GMT
Jan Hidders <hidders@gmail.com> wrote in news:1190911498.923039.151330@
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

....
> -- Jan Hidders

I find XML versus the relational model ball-crushingly boring.  The only
interesting and puzzling thing about such discussions is that seemingly
smart people try to find some merit in the XML monstrosity,  perhaps the
greatest calamity that has ever befallen data management technology !.

There is an essay written called "A Relational Model of Data for Large
Shared Data Banks".  "Sapienti sat !" as they say in Sanskrit.
Roy Hann - 27 Sep 2007 19:13 GMT
> Jan Hidders <hidders@gmail.com> wrote in news:1190911498.923039.151330@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> smart people try to find some merit in the XML monstrosity,  perhaps the
> greatest calamity that has ever befallen data management technology !.

Tut tut.  There isn't much wrong with XML.  It is an OK way to label tokens
so that they can be address and relabelled in wonderful ways.  The problem
is people who confuse typesetting with database management.  Anyone who is
capable of that is capable of anything.

Roy
Cimode - 27 Sep 2007 20:00 GMT
[Snipped]
<<The problem is people who confuse typesetting with database
management.  Anyone who is capable of that is capable of anything.>>
I would add that anybody who places relational model on the same
sentence than XML.(in a clueless comparaison of type A Vs Bf) simply
has no clue what he is talking about....
Jan Hidders - 27 Sep 2007 21:51 GMT
> Jan Hidders <hidd...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1190911498.923039.151330@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I find XML versus the relational model ball-crushingly boring.

Who is doing a "versus"?

>  The only
> interesting and puzzling thing about such discussions is that seemingly
> smart people try to find some merit in the XML monstrosity,  perhaps the
> greatest calamity that has ever befallen data management technology !.

Yes, yes, I know, I know. The horror, the horror. But maybe with your
background you will understand that XML is actually just another
manifestation of the relational model. After all, in essence XPath is
just first order logic over ordered node labeled trees.

> There is an essay written called "A Relational Model of Data for Large
> Shared Data Banks".  "Sapienti sat !" as they say in Sanskrit.

They do? Tha'ts funny. We say that in Latin. :-) But I'll keep that in
mind next time I treat that paper again with my students.

-- Jan Hidders
V.J. Kumar - 28 Sep 2007 01:31 GMT
...
>> There is an essay written [by Codd] called "A Relational Model of
>> Data for Large Shared Data Banks".  "Sapienti sat !" as they say in
>> Sanskrit.
>
> They do? Tha'ts funny. We say that in Latin. :-)

Yeah,  Latin is just a Hindi-European dialect Sanskrit simplified for
Europeans' use as Sir William Jones discovered to his utter amazement
more than 200 hundred years ago ;)
JOG - 28 Sep 2007 01:39 GMT
> ...
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Europeans' use as Sir William Jones discovered to his utter amazement
> more than 200 hundred years ago ;)

According to wikipedia, Sir William Jones believed that Sanskrit and
Latin had a common ancestor, not that one was derived from the other.

I guess it depends on how valid you deem the source. But then I also
like to believe wikipedia was written by one jolly person, without
much of a life, but an unending supply of donuts. Its like a safety
blanket for me.
Bob Badour - 28 Sep 2007 01:58 GMT
>>...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> much of a life, but an unending supply of donuts. Its like a safety
> blanket for me.

Trisyllabic laxing. It's a feature of languages from that same root
language. Latin, greek, sanskrit, english, german, french etc.
JOG - 28 Sep 2007 00:11 GMT
> > >>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> > >>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> data models. In fact most proposals for semistructured data models
> before XML weren't.

You make a good point because from what I can tell from the
literature, XML has pretty much hijacked all previous work on
"semistructured" data (Lore, etc).

But nervmind that - what, pray tell exactly is this "semi-structure"
anyhow? I ask this question mischeviously of course, having done a lot
of research on pinning down a definition, discovered that there is
none, or at best it is recursive. Some definitions in peer-reviewed
ACM papers are downright dreadful - "data that doesn't fit in a
relational database"!?

At the moment "semi-structure" as a term it is academic flim-flam.
Nonetheless I believe this can be remedied, and have been doing some
work on it recently.

> But even in XML this is not a big problem. Whether reordering destroys
> information or not depends on your interpretation of the data. If you
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> -- Jan Hidders
JOG - 28 Sep 2007 00:02 GMT
> > Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
> > hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
>
> It's all hype, of course.

Well my sarcasm alarm is buzzing, so ifs its not all hype what is it?
I was wondering more - what in the psyche of business managers has
encouraged them to use XML. Its deceptive simplicity I imagine - the
fact that anyone can knockup a bit of markup?

> Btw., what fundamental flaws?

If data is forced into a tree structure where no /single/ hierarchy
for it naturally exists, query bias is generated. This encompasses
just about every possible situation where data is shared in my
experience.  And query bias leads to databases that do 1 single task
very well, but the other deluge of n-1 tasks awfully. Nevermind the
fact that the XML is model navigational anyhow, so queries are already
going to be very long compared to a declarative approach. I mean xpath
has died on its arse right.

As a wise little man once told me XML leads to fear, fear leads to
hate, and hate leads to the dark side. Unless I need something off the
shelf and non-time critical (extremely non-time critical) to pass
about data that is only every going to be accessed in one single way.

> -- Jan Hidders
Marshall - 26 Sep 2007 16:17 GMT
> > I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> > have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> deal with XML storage directly I have found Oracle tools to be
> adequate..

Ooooh! An actual thread! It's been so quiet around here.

Hey, we haven't had an actual XML bashing thread in a while;
can we do that now? I'll start. Instead of trotting out my old
favorites, I have a new one I heard the other day.

"The programmer has a problem. His software needs a configuration
file. So he uses XML. Now the programmer has two problems."

Marshall
Bob Badour - 26 Sep 2007 18:21 GMT
>>>I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
>>>have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> "The programmer has a problem. His software needs a configuration
> file. So he uses XML. Now the programmer has two problems."

Only two?
Jan Hidders - 26 Sep 2007 15:53 GMT
> I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
> can store and manage this data?

Depends on what you want to do with it, what kind of data it is, what
type of servers you have available or have to use. In general, if the
RDBMS you use already has XML capabilities, that is probably not a bad
choice.

-- Jan Hidders
Marshall - 26 Sep 2007 16:20 GMT
> I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
> can store and manage this data?

A lot depends on what you want to do with this data. At the
low end, maybe it's enough to just record the strings. At the
other extreme, perhaps you need a complete schema for
the data coming in, and want to transform the data from
its XML hierarchy into a relational form.

Marshall
Cimode - 27 Sep 2007 12:04 GMT
> > I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> > have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Marshall

Common Marshall...Do not encourage the questionner into using an old
technology such as XML...In fact, the questionner should be using
MOML...It is a powerful language with very specific use that I
designed...It is so powerful that it can up to ten times the space
that is consumed by XML (yes ten times)...The SQLML committee has
already encouraged its use...  It is of course sold under license
because it has MOB capabilities (you have not misheard yes: MOB
capabilities!!)

BTW MOML stands for My Own Markup Language...and MOB for My Own
Bug....

Sorry about the fiction above (someone said lately that humor is
sometime the only sane response to absurdity)..I must confess I have
epidermic responses to anything that is related to XML....
David Cressey - 27 Sep 2007 13:54 GMT
> > > I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> > > have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Common Marshall...Do not encourage the questionner into using an old
> technology such as XML...

The OP doesn't explicitly want to use XML as a technology,  nor does
Marshall's response encourage him in that direction.  The OP explicitly
wants to use DATA that has been supplied to him in XML format.  The question
"how can I store and manage this data"  is exactly the right question.
Marshall's two suggestions establish a spectrum of possible rational
responses.

Cimode, I appreciate your sense of humor. The OP has asked a reasonable
question,  and I'd like to see him get a reasonable response.

For the OP:  Some DBMS products have a loader designed to transform incoming
XML into the tables that have been created for this purpose.  The question
on how those tables should be designed is a fundamental database design
question,  and the answer, as Marshall has said, depends on what you are
going to do with the data.

XML, in and of itself, doesn't answer a lot of the questions about the
internal structuring of the data.  Is the data stored in multiple instances
of the same fixed form records?  In other words, is the incoming data stored
in flat files dressed up to look like XML documents?

Or is stored in some deeply nested scheme that would be useful in the
context of a hierarchical DBMS,  but is nearly meaningless in the context of
an SQL DBMS?

In other words,  what is the visible structure of the XML data?   The answer
to this question could guide your answer.  Also, what resources are you
prepared to expend in order to store and manage this data "correctly"?  This
goes full circle back to "what do you intend to do with the data"?

You may end up designing some tables whose sole function is to receive the
data in its incoming structure (minus the XML),  as loaded very easily by a
fast and powerful loader.  You may then design a schema of tables that are a
logical view of the data that is ... er, well .... "logical".  Finally, you
would have to write some SQL code that would transform incoming data from
the incoming tables to the good logical tables.  This may seem like the long
way around,  but it might be simpler than transforming the data in one fell
swoop.
Cimode - 27 Sep 2007 15:12 GMT
[Snipped]
> > Common Marshall...Do not encourage the questionner into using an old
> > technology such as XML...
[Snipped]
> Cimode, I appreciate your sense of humor. The OP has asked a reasonable
> question,  and I'd like to see him get a reasonable response.
When it comes to database theory, there is no such thing as a
*reasonnable* response in anything related to XML.  Commenting further
the foolishness of XML is at best proposing hacks, at worst misleading
beginners with utter ignorance... (Glad you appreciate my humor
though ;))
[Snipped]
djmcmahon@gmail.com - 04 Oct 2007 22:58 GMT
> I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
> can store and manage this data?

Depends on what you need to do with it.  If all you want to do is
store messages from the feed, you could just shove the XML into a LOB
column along with other columns for the date/time received, etc.  No
different than if you were receiving, say, jpeg images.

A step up from that would be to extract relevant single-valued scalars
as part of intake processing in your host programming language (e.g.
Java) and stick them in querieable, indexable columns.  For example if
every XML message had exactly one <title> element in it, you could
extract that as you were receiving a message from the feeds, then put
it into a TITLE column as well as putting the message into a LOB
column.  Again no different than, say, extracting the horizontal and
vertical resolution from a jpeg image and storing them in columns
along with the jpeg itself.

If you need to be able to run queries over the contents of the XML,
and especially if you want the query result sets to yield fragments of
the XML messages instead of whole ones, you have a lot more work to
do.

Databases such as Oracle's allow you to create XML typed columns which
still store the XML in a LOB but let you dig out the content in
queries, index it, etc.  If you have XML schemas for your feeds, you
could even go so far as to specify decompositions of the XML into
relational tables.  These databases also let you query by XML
expressions, extract subsets of the XML, etc.

(Trouble arises when you need to do this with multi-valued elements,
or elements embedded within the hierarchy where multi-valued ancestors
might exist.)

FWIW I prefer to do as little as possible with the XML while it's in
the database, it's easier to think of it as an opaque object similar
to e.g. a jpeg image.  (Even a jpeg file has an internal structure,
containing information that might be useful in queries, e.g. the
resolution, bit depth, whatever.)  It's usually not too hard,
especially with XML, to extract whatever you think you'll need to
support searches and such, and put that into real columns as part of
the intake processing in a host language.  You can then do any XML/
XQuery style filtering of the internal content of the XML objects as
part of host-language post-processing, after using SQL in the usual
way to find objects of possible interest.  This might or might not fit
your application.

If you absolutely must be able to drive queries from internal multi-
valued elements, path expressions, etc., then you'll need help from
the database in the form of XML extensions such as Oracle's, or if
none are available, you'll have to do the relevant decomposition of
the XML yourself in the host language and then populate your own
"index tables".  For example, if your input XML contains <address>
elements, and possibly more than one such per message, and you think
it's important to index the <zipcode> element underneath <address> to
support searches for messages based on zip code, you'll need to have
one table with {MSG_ID, MSG_XML_CONTENT} and another table with
{ADDRESS_ZIP_CODE, MSG_ID} that you will have to populate as part of
intake processing.
djmcmahon@gmail.com - 04 Oct 2007 23:02 GMT
> I get XML feeds as input and have to store this data on our server. I
> have worked with databases but new to XML. Can someone tell me how I
> can store and manage this data?

Depends on what you need to do with it.  If all you want to do is
store messages from the feed, you could just shove the XML into a LOB
column along with other columns for the date/time received, etc.  No
different than if you were receiving, say, jpeg images.

A step up from that would be to extract relevant single-valued scalars
as part of intake processing in your host programming language (e.g.
Java) and stick them in querieable, indexable columns.  For example if
every XML message had exactly one <title> element in it, you could
extract that as you were receiving a message from the feeds, then put
it into a TITLE column as well as putting the message into a LOB
column.  Again no different than, say, extracting the horizontal and
vertical resolution from a jpeg image and storing them in columns
along with the jpeg itself.

If you need to be able to run queries over the contents of the XML,
and especially if you want the query result sets to yield fragments of
the XML messages instead of whole ones, you have a lot more work to
do.

Databases such as Oracle's allow you to create XML typed columns which
still store the XML in a LOB but let you dig out the content in
queries, index it, etc.  If you have XML schemas for your feeds, you
could even go so far as to specify decompositions of the XML into
relational tables.  These databases also let you query by XML
expressions, extract subsets of the XML, etc.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.