Re: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces
From: x <x-false_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:28:06 +0300
Message-ID: <40c015b9_at_post.usenet.com>
> > > mountain man) with namespaces being no different. We separate out
root
> > > nodes for namespaces based on different companies or subsidiaries or
> > > divisions.
> >
> > > Why do we have different rules for namespaces depending on where they
> > in
> > > the namespace tree? Is there any logic to that? Associate with any
> > > relation name the same things you associate with a schema (root
> > > and you have a more elegant structure, it seems (by being consistent).
> > XML
> > > permits relations nested to any level. There is a point where it
> > > confusing semantically (that's where some products cut off the
> > > but it surely is not at the level of relations. Permitting relations
> > within
> > > any namespace (including within a relation) seems reasonable.
> >
> > What namespaces have to do with nested relations ?
> > A nested relation is a nested "structure" not just nested names.
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:28:06 +0300
Message-ID: <40c015b9_at_post.usenet.com>
- Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:c9o2en$vde$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40bf6328$1_at_post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9ni4h$ial$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > "x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40bef890_at_post.usenet.com...> > > The entire logical model is interwoven with the applications (such as
> > > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:c9m55r$k99$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > <snip>
> > > > Hierarchical namespaces tend to be dependent on the applications.
> > > > Hierarchical namespaces tend to classify *things*.
> > > > We need a method general enough to deal with any kind of facts.
> > > > But I agree that "labeling" is one of the human abilities.
> > >
> > > mountain man) with namespaces being no different. We separate out
root
> > > nodes for namespaces based on different companies or subsidiaries or
> > > divisions.
> >
> > > Why do we have different rules for namespaces depending on where they
> are
> > in
> > > the namespace tree? Is there any logic to that? Associate with any
> > > relation name the same things you associate with a schema (root
> namespace)
> > > and you have a more elegant structure, it seems (by being consistent).
> > XML
> > > permits relations nested to any level. There is a point where it
> becomes
> > > confusing semantically (that's where some products cut off the
> hierarchy)
> > > but it surely is not at the level of relations. Permitting relations
> > within
> > > any namespace (including within a relation) seems reasonable.
> >
> > What namespaces have to do with nested relations ?
> > A nested relation is a nested "structure" not just nested names.
> > Within "this" namespace what are you permitted to name? The answer is > different at the root level than at the relation level. Why? --dawn
You are permitted to name what it is at that level. You cannot name anything else.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=