Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:07:12 -0400
Message-ID: <RfidnV2iiqBO6vjcRVn-gg_at_comcast.com>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:416571ce.25511796_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:42:21 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >When are you going to stop with this, Alfredo??? It's getting old. Of
> >course there are references to 1NF in the 1970 paper! The term used in
the
> >paper is "normal form".
>
> No, 1NF is not that. What Codd wrote about normalization in the 1970
> paper is now obsolete. The paper has historical interest only.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. I don't claim that it's the last word on the subject. I do claim it's the first word on the subject.

>
> A modern formulation of the 1NF could be something like this:
>
> All relations are in 1NF.

So how come you said the following, "1NF is the same thing as always, but it was traditionally
misunderstood." in this same thread. Which is it?

>
> >I may be imprecise in my wording. Codd tried to be precise in his
wording.
> >I believe he succeeded.
>
> You are wrong. He failed and it is explained on the books.

There you go again! To you, everything is either perfect or a failure. Nonsense.
>
> You should read Date's writings about 1NF.
>
> >> For instance: Are strings simple or complex?
> >
> >It depends. From the point of view of the DBMS, they are simple. From
the
> >point of view of the SUBSTRING function, they are complex. That doesn't
> >mean that the definitions are vague.
>
> Your point is very weak and fuzzy.

It's not weak and fuzzy at all. If you can't tell the difference between a DBMS and a SUBSTRING function, I can't help you. Received on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 19:07:12 CEST

Original text of this message