In article <gMzHc.180582$Q%4.8677405_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>> You keep treating redundancy and normalization as if
>> they were the same things; they're not.
>
> Well, the term "redundancy" has a pretty well-specified meaning in
> normalization theory. The informal version of that definition is as follows:
>
> "A certain part of that data structure is said to be redundant if you
> cannot remove it without losing information."
ITYM "can remove it". Anyway, Neo appears to be insistent on defining
normalization as "some process on the database which removes redundancy";
unfortunately, such a definition makes it virtually impossible to make
general statements about "normalization" above and beyond the definition
itself.
--
Chris Hoess
Received on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 16:30:51 CDT
