Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0407121857.7ab12f1f_at_posting.google.com...
> > > 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.
>
> A clearification/correction as to why references don't need to be
> normalized.

Hey! I think you might be getting somewhere (though you probably don't know it). You still shouldn't bring up references as part of a user-level normalization definition if it is not in scope.

[snip].
While the end point (red) is the same in all
> cases, the starting point is not. The starting point is implicit while
> the end point is explict.

So, please oblige me and bear with me. I think understand. References as a whole are unique and therefore don't have to succumb to the rules of most general normalization. In your example, we get: <implict><link>red
<implict><link>red

Because we each <implicit> is unique, all the links are unique, even if red is repeated three times, right?

Hey, do you mind if I give each <implicit> a name? No big deal, I just want to be able to ensure we can distinguish between each <implicit> and have a common way of identifying and communicating them between us.

How about
John's Color <link> red
Mary's Color <link> red

So we haven't changed anything that would circumvent your rationale for why references are unique and don't have to be normalized, right? All that we did was substitute names for implicit things.

Hey, I know it might be a bother, but being a user and all, wouldn't it be ok if we substitute <link> with the word 'is'. I mean, that is what it means, right?

So now we get,

John's Color is red.
Mary's Color is red.

Hey, I understand!! even though red is referenced twice and appears to be redundant, it really isn't because of its participation in the relationship. The implicit part made the redundancy irrevalent. I would have never thought of that if you hadn't provided your correction/clarification. Thanks Neo!!! I can see now how those other stuffy guys on the list have it all wrong.

Regards,

Dan Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 07:41:38 CEST