Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ToySoldier who wrote (29692)	1/3/2000 10:49:00 AM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Respond to of 42771

Hello Toy, I'm always looking for analogies to use to explain new topics for presentations ... I really like the parallels and think that there are some important things to "learn" with this one! > Well, considering that XML and SQL both end in the letter "L", I > would have to say that they are quite similar in nature. They are > both a form of "Language" designed to convey a structured message > from a source to a destination. The main difference is that the > destination of SQL is a database and the for XML it is almost > anything (a database, a directory, a web browser, an application, > etc.). I know this is a techy perspective, but I'm not sure that I agree with the limited scope of SQL. I know that current implementations tend to use SQL for databases, but because it was properly architected it could be used for almost anything ... I should be able to issue SQL queries against any type of information, data or server. Properly layering enables this ... XML is more generic, but why can't I do SQL queries against NDS or my Enterprise Web Server? ;-) > In its purist definition I would agree that SQL and XML are not > access protocols (they are languages), but they could easily be > considered and used as one depending on how it was implemented. ?? Hmmm ... I'll have to think about that one ... > And I will go one step further in saying that not only is SQL not > the best way to store data or information, it cant at all. It can > carry data in the form of an SQL response, but not store it. Thats > the job of the database. This is where it takes a little bit of "weird" thinking ... SQL can be used to store ... either queries or responses ... just simply write the SQL information to disk. It's just bits ... BUT you are right that it's not the optimal way to store data ... > XLM on the otherhand could store data but I would only consider > that to be an XLM structured data form. XLM itself is more the > language, template, schema, etc. Correct me on this statement if I > am out - you know better than I on the XML topic. It's simply a little more "generic" in how information and data are represented ... but again, it is not necessarily an optimal way to store information or data ... merely a "language" that data or information can be translated into ... and back from! ;-) Scott C. Lemon