"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b45d3ad.0403031714.59dd6db1_at_posting.google.com...
> > You're joking, right?
>
> No, not joking. See www.xdb1.com/Basic/Symbol.asp,
> www.xdb1.com/GUI/Labels.asp and www.xdb1.com/HowTo/Find.asp
>
> > You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.
>
> No, not joking. See www.xdb1.com/Basic/Symbol.asp,
> www.xdb1.com/GUI/Labels.asp and www.xdb1.com/HowTo/Find.asp
>
> > > The exact method of normalization and to what extent is practical is
> > > dependent on the data model and its implementation.
> >
> > No, it's dependent on neither of those.
>
> Then how do you explain that in TDM/XDb1, things are normalized down
> to atomic symbols (a, b, c ...) where as a similar level of
> normalization in RDM is impractical?
I gotta admit that I thought you were joking too, Neo. I don't know what
you mean by normalize and why not go down to the 1's & 0's -- what does the
symbol "normalization" gain you? Perhaps I haven't read your web sites
close enough, but at this point I'm definitely not tracking. --dawn
Received on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 19:22:02 CST
