Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0407082105.8cc1059_at_posting.google.com...
> > But then these references or pointer values are redundant, so to ensure
no
> > redundancy in these values, you must create a new set of pointers or
> > references using a new alphabet. But wait! Even this new set of
> > pointers/or references have values, both in terms of digits and as a
> > sequence, that are needlessly replicated, so a new set is needed to
point to
> > the pointers that pointed to the pointers that point to a single value.
>
> References aren't within the scope of normalizing things in a db
> because they are independent of the things being represented.

But you expose them (references/pointers) to us as part of a data model and use it to support your notion of a "most general form of normalization." You do it over and over. If they are not in scope, then don't bring them up. On the other hand, if you want to do the referencing by value and expose that to us, then that is fine, but then again you will be duplicating values (or objects in Neo speak), a feature where redundancy is desired in RM. If you were to do this, then we can merely question the wisdom and the faculty of logic of the person whose universe of discourse we intend to formalize within a DBMS based on symbols.

Very few users are going to specify their system or their universe of discourse in terms of a model where alphabet symbols are one type of node and sequences of symbols are another type of node with a morass of directed arcs between these nodes. That provide no value in terms of information or meaning when considering the units in isolation.

Moreover, when thinking about your "normalized model", I've come to the conclusion that you actually introduce the potential for unintended update anomolies precisely because of the fact that normalization is based on functional dependencies (read semantic rules) while your efforts are constrained to syntactic dependencies.

If I were to delete the 'r' in 'brown' in your string list, would all instances of 'brown' be modified (e.g. person name, street name, etc.).? A properly normalized database would.....but it me either unintended or incorrect in your form of normalization.

If I were to change the 'br' in 'brown' of the street name to 'cl', would all other references to 'brown' associated with other "objects" reflect this update? How would you know one way or the other how the system should behave without semantic considerations? A user might want all strings of 'brown' changed to 'clown' and in other cases, only the name of the object he or she is altering.

The
> actual implementation of references is a hardware issue, not a logical
> one.

I agree, but then it shouldn't be exposed as part of your normalization. It is an implementation issue.

On some hardware (ie PCs), references to the same thing probably
> do have the same values. On other hardware (ie brain?), references to
> the same thing are likely different paths to the same neuron(s) and
> don't have no duplicate "values".
>
> In an ideal db (ie brain?) the user isn't aware of the hardware values
> that may or may not be associated with a reference.

None of us thinks coherently in terms of broken up characters. We think in terms of words and sentences (predicates). If we have to spell, we might have several redundant points of reference in our heads from which to draw from. I would be surprised if only one value of anything existed in our head. Received on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 09:19:42 CEST