Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0407061849.580874d6_at_posting.google.com...
> > 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.\

It's not, it's not, it's not. You can preach this nonsense till the cows come home, but it will never be true. Several examples have been provided to you.

>
> > > 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.

That's on old version, maybe 12 years old. They are up to 4th Ed. now.

Anyway, As I stated elswhere, I give up. Received on Wed Jul 07 2004 - 15:25:52 CEST