Re: A Normalization Question

>From: neo55592_at_hotmail.com (Neo)
>Date: 2004-07-06 1:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <4b45d3ad.0407060921.64806da6_at_posting.google.com>
>
>> There would never be a relation called "THINGS" containing the attributes
>in
>> the way you infer.
>
>Sure there would because even attributes are things. Everything is a
>thing. It is possible for an attribute to have attributes and thus the
>attribute with respect to its attributes becomes a thing. For example,
>'brown' can have the attribute language whose value(s) could be
>english, spanish, etc.
>
>> In normalization, one does not consider the values of the attributes, only
>> the semantics of the relationships among them.
>
>If one chooses to ignore some things (ie 'brown', 'brown', 'brown'),
>then one has a limited understanding/implementation of normalization.
>
>> The fact that a name, street, color, and anything other attribute has the
>> value of "Brown" has absolutely zero, nada, zip, zilch to do with
>> normalization or redundancy. Nothing at all.
>
>If the string 'brown' has the attribute language, it would be stored
>three times, each having the same value. Changing the third 'brown's
>language (ie to western english), would create an update anomaly thus
>proving that things weren't normalized.
>

neo, I understand the reason not to store the string 'brown' more than once, but how do you store the fact that Mr. Brown lives on Brown St., drives a brown car, has brown hair, wears a brown suit, and has one brown and one blue eye?

V Harris Received on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 16:11:42 CEST