Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:41640d8d.19931703_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:16:07 -0500, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
> <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:
>
> >this anyway. When I mention 1NF, I mean 1NF as it was defined until a
few
> >years ago and the 1NF that SQL-92 (and, therefore ODBC) understands, and
the
> >1NF that most RDBMS users put their data into.
>
> 1NF is the same thing as always, but it was traditionally
> misunderstood.
>
> The traditional definition says that tuple attribute values must be
> atomic, but without saying what "atomic" means.
>
> "Atomic" has not a precise definition and we could say that relation
> values are atomic.
>
> > So, I am very pleased that
> >the industry has gotten back to the concept that a value could
legitimately
> >be a list.
>
> The most part of the industry still don't understand the concept.
>
> >This is not well-known or well-taught as yet, although it is
> >only with relational theory that the flawed notion of 1NF was brought
into
> >the database picture. Thankfully gains are being made, but it will take
a
> >long, long time before we fix our industry -- the 1NF craze (as
previously
> >defined) has been very costly.
>
> Non scalar attribute types are seldom useful.
>
> The most probable thing is that you never find a practical good use
> for them in your whole career.
>
> >Wrong, bucko, I mean, Alfredo ;-)
> >...
> >One can specify graph paths in a variety of ways -- the specification can
be
> >metadata and not procedural code -- I am not referring to any
implementation
> >of the theory. I'm saying that the same theory humans use to navigate
roads
> >and the web can be used to navigate data. Navigation is NOT bad and does
> >have a mathematical theory behind it as well.
>
> After this, I am more sure of I am right than before.

What you said was that I was looking for procedural code to navigate through a database. I am not. So, what is it of which you are convinced? That will help me formulate a more well-thought-out response. I thought I adequately covered your statement that I was advocating procedural code. Cheers! --dawn Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 17:31:06 CEST