Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:41:48 -0400
Message-ID: <cu16kc.6fn.ln@mercury.downsfam.net>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:

> "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

End of conversation.

Laconic2: I'll check out that thread Dawn started, thanks for the pointer.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 07:41:48 CDT