Oh...the confounding of the masses!

I believe most of the replies given to my criticisms were in agreement, mostly, with the notion of NOT storing multi-valued attributes within a single field specification when that tool will only support single-valued elements.

I agree that if you stored the XML content with the expectation that it was static, for instance the XML schema definition itself as opposed to the XML content, and were prepared to treat it as such, then, a BLOB/CLOB data type would seem appropriate.

The beef I have, however, is manifold. History has shown us that hierarchical structures, although present, are rigid, inflexible, and administratively burdensome. The relational model is much more highly flexible, even to the point of creating models of data models not just the content itself, thus, producing the dynamical flexibility that many developers tout as one of the strengths of XML.

The point is that MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Sybase, et. al. are SQL and attempt to be Relational DBMS’s. To subvert the relational model by providing for multi-valued content without the proper database management functions to constrain, quantify, and validate that information breaks the sole purpose for providing the DBMS to begin with.

Let us not forget; there are hierarchical and multi-valued DBMS platforms available out there. Does anybody remember dBASE, FoxPro, Paradox, Progress, Informix, et. al.? Those are antiquated technologies. Although many data administrators and developers may still support such monstrosities, can anyone argue the superior benefits of these systems over the relational systems?

Predicate Logic and Set Theory, the foundation for Relational Systems, says little to the elements of the sets other than the constraining factors of their respective domains, but merely the constructs for the relations between sets and the operations that may be performed on them. The model can be extended far beyond the content of data in raw form to include data structure as content and higher abstract models as data content too. This is much more highly flexible than the rigid structure that XML imposes upon us.

As to my incivility, with regard to peers, my apologies, however, I am inundated with so-called data and database "developers" who do not have the first clue as to what data management is or how to employ the tools available to optimize such management. Moreover, it is these "nitwits" that are usually the first to jump in line with the other lemmings following the piper vendors on every new fad purposed without thoughtful examination. Moreover, these are the ones who misuse the tools most often because they have no basis to evaluate the correctness of their solutions, no historical knowledge or experience with the antiquated concepts in order to defend their creations.

As you yourself expounded, the developer needs this, the developer requires that. True, the database developer may or may not need such solutions. However, how truely qualified are many of the application developers who also see themselves as database development "experts"?

In my opinion, an application developer and database developer for over two decades, one who remembers the days of ISAM, VSAM, dBASE, Foxpro, etc., and now, a fully qualified database administrator as well, the evidence of the use and misuse of such technologies as XML, I stand by my comments: put down the "Teach Yourself in 21 Days" books and do a little "REAL" research as to the design and purpose of database systems.

If you want hierarchical storage, bleed at your own risk, but keep that garbage out of the Enterprise's Relational system. As database system administrators and developers, it is your responsibility to fight against such insanity and to educate the lower beings on the proper usage of such tools. A wise person would recognize their inadequacies and defer to the wisdom of the more-learned colleagues. Quit following the market-speak, listen to your elders, question the wisdom of your actions, you arrogant pups. Some of us have been around the block a few more times than you. You could learn a thing or two that might really do someone, in addition to yourself, some real good.