Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and a functional SQL schema

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Steven,

+1

This is what we have been espousing as the true benefit of XML for
7+ years now.

If you are using an RDBMS that supports XML storage types then
its even more effective.

Why disassemble and reassemble the XML at the atomic level
when you do not have to?!?

De-compose it at the logical level - parent / child if you need,
but even that is going to be driven only by specific business
need and design / access constraints WRT accessing the child
content independently of the parent.

I wish I could engrave your text on a stone tablet and
enshrine it somewhere symbolic!

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Herod" <sherod@team.tedis.biz>
To: "'Tim McGrath'" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>; "'alex black'"
<enigma@turingstudio.com>
Cc: "'Chin Chee-Kai'" <cheekai@softml.net>; <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL and a functional SQL schema


> We find the UBL schema's extremely complicated, the thought of modeling
them
> in a relational database makes me want to run screaming into the night.
>
> We store the UBL as XML in a CLOB/BLOB column and then choose a few key
> reference fields to extract into relational tables for us to do look ups.
>
> This allows us to find the xml, extract it and then work with it.
>
> This works for us for literally millions of records a week.
>
>
>