Re: [xml-dev] Normalizing XML [was: XML information modeling best practices]

Ronald Bourret wrote:
> 
> Manos Batsis wrote:
> > > XML is pretty good for tables, but not so good
> > > for enforcing relational normalization rules.
> >
> > Of course. Enforcing relational normalization rules shuts down most good
> > reasons to use XML in the first place, with the possible exception of
> > exchanging DB data between servers via http.
> 
> I don't think this is quite true. One of the questions I wrestled with
> in trying to understand native XML databases was what "normalization"
> meant. While there's undoubtedly a lot of room for thought here, I did
> take a look at the first, second, and third (relational) normal forms
> and tried to see what they meant in XML terms.
> 
  [discussion of relational normal forms wrt an xml example]
> 
> Comments?
> 

referential transparency means that "the value [or meaning] of an
expression is, within certain limits, the same wherever it occurs."
normal forms provide this in relational models. they depend on the
associated interpretation mechanism for their effect. it is possible to
draw analogies, but one wonders whether, aside from the practical
question of how to transcode relational data, it might be worth while to
begin the analysis from the goal itself, that is how to achieve
referential transparency when working with xml-encoded information,
rather than from an analogy?

on the other hand, when i reflect on the ambivalence between bits and
form which pertains, and observe that one need not wait until the
problem concerns the best way to encode order transactions or
geneological trees, but need only try to specify what a qualified name
means, perhaps the question is ill advised.

...