Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:11:18 GMT
Message-ID: <aq%vc.5718$er.906_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
news:c9oau1$5g1$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
> news:40bfac0d$0$15440$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> > Bill H wrote:
> >
> > > mAsterdam wrote:
> > >>Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>It think it is worth noting that is far more difficult to retrieve an
> > >>>invoice the way it looked originally after chopping it up
> > >>
> > >>You chopped it up. Why?
> > >>
> > >>While chopping it up, you got rid of the layout.
> > >>What you will retrieve is the data, not the layout.
> > >>Now if you also have some markup for the abstract invoice,
> > >>you can just fit the invoice-data you retrieved into the
> > >>invoice-markup.
> > >
> > > I find it interesting you should say this. All RDBMS products I've
seen
> > > show data in columns and rows. In fact, that is the language of
RDBMS:
> rows
> > > and columns.
> > >
> > > It is not unusual, therefore, to define and describe data in a
preferred
> > > layout?
> >
> > I don't know about the 'therefore', but in
> > my experience their preferred layout is something
> > which domain experts are most comfortable with.
> >
> > The most important question here, though (the one
> > Dawn refused to answer) is why do want to chop it up?
> > What exactly are you trying to achieve by doing so?
> >
> Sorry, not refusal, but even I get sick of my broken record on 1NF --
> that's why things are chopped up unnecessarily, in order to put them into
> 1NF. So, in the example I gave, there is no reason, in my opinion, not to
> have a single line of the invoice be stored in a tuple, allowing the lists
> to be elements of the tuple, just as the single-valued attributes are.
What are your criteria for chopping into the following:
1. files 2. attributes 3. sub-attributes 4. sub-sub-attributes
? Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 16:11:18 CEST