3 thoughts on “XML and SQL, happy together

  1. Jamie

    Even better, in some situations at least, is to harvest information from your XML and other data sources into a Topic Map or set of RDF triples (I have a strong preference for the latter), and then query that (which might well be stored in a relational database).

    This has the advantages of flexibility (it is much easier to extend your ontology/model than it is to add new tables and columns), automated inferencing, data and explicit structure in a single place, and easy serialisation.

    Reply
    1. Saskia Post author

      Thanks for making that point. In general, I think, the choice is based on your needs – for example, is your data likely to be rather stable but you need a lot of consistency looking it up, or do you foresee frequent changes in your model that calls for flexibility? IMO the article does a good job in explaining the reasons for the mixture of XML and SQL.

      Reply
      1. Jamie

        Yes indeed, needs should determine solutions. I doubt I will ever work on a project which captures and models all of the information it wants – typically as soon as that is done, some bright spark comes up with new related data sources and/or further inflections on existing data that should be explored. However, I didn’t mean at all to be argumentative or quash the idea of linking XML to other data sources!

        Oh, and of course in my first comment I meant to say that I had a strong preference for the *former*, ie Topic Maps, solution!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s