Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news: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.

Wasting his time, Alan replies :

"Brown is a string" is a true proposition. "Brown" is just a string, IOW, "Brown" in some context (E.g., "The car's color is brown") is a true proposition. Sitting there detached from the rest of the world, it is just an English word, or, to remain consistent with the knowledge that we are talking about a computer mini-world, it is just a string. This gets back to what everyone else understands: Normalization takes place in a meaningful (E.g., business) context. It is not about bits, bytes, strings, or physical storage. Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 19:23:28 CEST