Re: A Normalization Question
Date: 14 Jul 2004 09:26:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0407140826.3ab81640_at_posting.google.com>
> Er, no. If you would have read beyond the first sentence you would seen
> that I meant that nothing in a DB *is* a fact but some things *represent*
> a fact. Big difference.
Er, let's try again. I claim the string 'brown' is a fact. You say its not. You say "A fact is a true proposition." I say the string 'brown' is a true proposition that being: The string 'brown' is composed of the symbols 'b', 'r', 'o', 'w' and 'n' in that order. Or in a simpler form: 'brown' is composed of 'b', 'r', 'o', 'w' and 'n' in that order.
Can you tell me why 'brown' is not a fact? Do you/RM need 'brown' to be spreadout over multiple attribute values of a tuple before recognizing it as a fact? If so, RM is a limited data model with limited definitions. Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 18:26:56 CEST