Re: A Normalization Question

> Yes, [RM] has limitations, but normalizing data is not one of them.
> The RM defines normalization.

RM defines a limited form of normalization. The general form of normalization which is the central theme to all xNFs (where x may be infinite), allows one to identify 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' as being redundant which XDb1/TDM normalizes.

> You just refuse to accept normalization ...

I accept the general form of normalization that can be applied to all data models and allows one to recognize that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is redundant. I refuse to accept RM's limited form of normalization as the general form of normalization which doesn't allow one to recognize that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is redundant.

> > A better reference is C.J. Date's "An Intro to Database Systems"...
>
> How does that make it better?
> Anyways how would you know it is better since you never read Navathe?

While I have not read all 873 pages of Elmasri/Navathe's "Fund of Db Sys" 2nd Ed that sits several books under my C.J. Date's "Intro to Db Sys" 6th Ed, I have read enough of it to know that compared to that of Date's p288-9, their fundamental explanation of normalization on p407 is limited: "Normalization of data can be looked on as a process during which unsatisfactory relation shemas are decomposed by breaking up their attributes into smaller relations schemas that possess desirable properties". C.J. Date's is better because his fundamental explanation comes closer to the general form of normalization that can be applied to data in any model, even those that don't have any relations.

> > Normalizing 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is higher than 5NF.
>
> Even if it is, that doesn't make it better- it just makes it different.

It makes RM's concept of normalization, limited. Received on Wed Jul 07 2004 - 04:49:11 CEST