Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Lee Fesperman" <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:40B5A4C1.6189_at_ix.netcom.com...
> Neo wrote:
> > The problem is, when I used the term normalized, I meant it in the
> > more general sense which can be applied to any data model [replace
> > redundant data with refs (system supported links that are unrelated to
> > data ie IDs in RM) to the one and only original within db). But I can
> > see how the term caused confusion.
>
> I'm really tired of half-baked interpretations of the relational model by
you and others
> of your ilk (vendors of ad-hoc database systems).
>
> > XDb1 doesn't define the general form of normalization. Neither does
> > RM. But the general form of normalization applies to all data models.
> > I want RM's solution to be normalized in the general sense of the word
> > (which apparently is a superset of the 5/6 "normal forms"). Even C. J.
> > Date states "the purpose of such reduction is to avoid redundancy" in
> > his chapter titled "Further Normalization I: 1NF, 2NF, 3NF, BCNF".
>
> There is no "general form" of normalization. Rather than educating
yourself on the
> issue, you take a summary of the concept (a single sentence in this case)
and go off on
> a ridiculous tangent.
>

The term "normal form" is not a monopoly of relational model.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=