Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF
Date: 8 Oct 2004 05:19:01 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0410080419.3be6211d_at_posting.google.com>
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<CbydnaMpAdDJq_vcRVn-gQ_at_comcast.com>...
> There's no need for Kenneth or me to go off to Date's writings.
I disagree.
> 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.
> 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.
But you are showing that you don't understand the issue very well currently.
Regards Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 14:19:01 CEST