Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:25:41 +0200
Message-ID: <41666b23$0$25965$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Laconic2 wrote:
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>

>>So now the string is atomic depending on what you do with it.

>
> An integer is atomic or not depending on what you do with it.
>

>>It sounds a little strange to me.

>
> Hell, in physics, an atom is atomic or not depending on what you do with
> it.

Not to mention what they do to cats :-)

>>I recomend you and Laconic2 to read Date's writings in order to
>>understand why "atomic" is not a precise term.

>
> There's no need for Kenneth or me to go off to Date's writings.

No need, but definiteley a worthwhile read. I couldn't find my old edition of his 'introduction'.

Some things I like very much about this book:

• It does not shy away from problems, avoided by other books.
• Chris Date admits (and describes) changes in his thinking over the years.
• Opinions are clear, and clearly stated as such.
• Opposing opinions are clearly stated, put in good perspective, and challenged.

> If you will recall, Dawn started a discussion in here a few months ago with
> the (somewhat wry) title of "Date's first great blunder." In that article,
> the difference between Date's formulation of 1NF and Codd's formulation of
> 1NF was outlined pretty clearly. Equally clear, at least to me, was that
> Dawn's objection to 1NF was based on the requirement that column values be
> atomic, and not based on the difference between a bag and a set. The
> details of that discussion covered an awful lot of the ground you are
> sending me off to Date to "learn".
>
> I don't know if Kenneth was reading the forum at that time. If not, Ken,
> the subject was pretty much beaten to death at that time. There was a lot
> of "people hearing without listening" going on.

It was a sales ploy by Date's publisher ;-) Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 05:25:41 CDT