Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
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.

The main issue is that the "atomic" term does not have an absolute meaning and we can not base any formal definition on it. Codd's definition is not valid.

> 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.

An objection that does not make sense because she is objecting a meaningless requirement. We can't define what "atomic" means in a precise way. It is all a byzantine discussion.

> 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

Original text of this message