🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul20.171350.1@idicl1.idi.battelle.org>, raudabaugh@idicl1.idi.battelle.org writes:

>I view SGML as a very powerful method to describe relationships between
>entities within a document (or document type).  To suggest that SGML is
>a poor data-modeling device seems somewhat absurd.  ASN.1 encoding is also
>a poor data-modeling device so nobody uses it for that.
>
>SGML does an excellent job describing document structure.  BUT, it does not
>address context/semantic relations that data-modeling is all about.  Nor
>should it.

  I can't make head or tail of this comment.  If you "view SGML as a very
powerful method to describe relationships", then why does it not "address
context/semantic relations"?  What is the distinction that you draw between
modelling and describing?  Is it that you think that structuring means 
"identifying entities", while modelling means "describing relationships"?

>OK, why did I bring this up?  Because standards should be used for what they
>are good for.  A good data-modeling standard that sits on top of a data
>manipulation language (such as SQL) and a document description language (such
>as SGML) would be heaven sent.

  A data model doesn't sit on top of a data manipulation language, just
the reverse. The relational model came before, and is quite independent 
of, SQL.  

-Darrell.