Re: A Normalization Question

> You could say that the string "brown" is a reference to the actual
> colour brown. Or the string "Brown" is a reference to the surname Brown.

While the first string 'brown' does act as a unsystematic reference to a person, the second string 'brown' as a unsystematic reference to a color, and the third string 'brown' as a unsystematic reference to a street, the issue isn't about how each string acts but about the string itself being redundant). The same thing (string 'brown') is in the db three times. It is redundant.

> Redundancy in terms of databases is about removing semantic duplicates,
> not about removing syntactic duplicates. i.e. about the logical level,
> not the physical level.

The above is an example of a limited form of normalization. The general form of normalization applies to everthing being represented (stored, not merely implied) within a db. If sytactic is stored (meaning it has a location within the db), they are also candidates for normalization.

The role of each string 'brown' as a unsystematic reference is probably syntactic. The string 'brown' itself is probably semantic. Regardless, the same thing is in the db three times, it is redundant.

> I think the type of redundancy you're talking about is more lower-level
> like information theory, Huffman coding etc.:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

The lowest (most general) level will be applicable to all higher (more specific) levels. Received on Thu Jul 08 2004 - 13:47:53 CDT