Re: A Normalization Question

> > The "standard" definition of redundanty you are referring to is a
> > limited definition most applicable to a limited data model (RM).
>
> No. It's the general definition that is applicable to all data models,
> even such wild data models as XML.

Your definition does not extend to the Thing Model (TM) which recognizes 'brown', 'brown' and 'brown' as the same three things. See www.xdb2.com/Example/ThingsNamedBrown.asp

> > While all bet may be off in RM because anomaly only applies to fixed
> > schema, such is not the case in my data model where even schema is
> > considered just another thing.
>
> No. Also there all bets are off because you have to redefine what exactly
> an update anomaly is and motivate that definition.

All bets are off in RM not in TM. The motivation is to cover the largest scope which means to recognize every thing and not just tuples, attributes, values, and relations. Received on Sun Jul 18 2004 - 01:01:04 CEST