[hfdb] Re: Grand Unified Hardware Database

[James K. Lowden]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:16:16 -0400, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
>     XML is (at least in my mind) a standardized storage representation
>     format (ASCII/ Unicode, and human readable tags).
> 
>     SQL and a relational DB is also a standardized storage format.
> 
> The point is that XML has lots of practical advantages.
> One of them is that we don't need to run a DBMS program.
> Another is it already works well in practice as a solution to a very
> similar problem.
> 
> Unless people see some obstacle to using XML for this, let's make the
> decision to do it that way.  It would be a big simplification.

Richard, 

I'm sorry to begin this way, but I have to tell you: using XML *instead*
of an RDBMS is breathtakingly bad idea.  You're ignoring all the benefits
of an RDBMS.  Do I have to convince you those benefits are both real and
substantial?  

As a data interchange format, I'm all for XML.  As a storage format, well,
I don't see the point.  Sure, it's simple; so is /etc/hosts.  It's also
completely insufficient.  

If you don't believe me, maybe Fabian Pascal would be more convincing:

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622561.htm

> Another is it already works well in practice as a solution to a very
> similar problem.

We are embarking on a project that is afaict an order of magnitude more
complex than any "similar" project.  The benefits of relational calculus
will be brought to bear on the problem.  We can either use ourselves or a
machine to do that work.  I vote for the machine.  

This project will succeed or fail on one thing: the ability of the data
integrators to integrate data from disparate and sometimes flawed sources.
 Expecting them to do that with flat files -- marked up or not -- is not
realistic. 

Regards, 

--jkl