Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:11:31 GMT
Message-ID: <TJnad.158374$wV.107657@attbi_s54>

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:ckcqt3$3o1$1_at_news.netins.net...

> A mathematical relation may certainly have a relation as an element, as well
> as a collection, an ordered tuple, etc. The non-mathematical statement that
> entered into the theory was the statement that since it is simpler to
> exclude non-simple types, then if we can do everything with relations by
> excluding such types, then we ought to take this route in order to have
> simpler mathematics. That is NOT a statement from within mathematics.

Agreed.

> Additionally, what ought we to simplify -- the mathematics? NO! For
> reduced errors we want to make data modeling, design, and use easier (than
> it is today, perhaps?) It might require very complex mathematics to
> simplify the use of databases by humans. So, we don't want to perpetuate
> the old 1NF concepts by continued use of SQL-92 and like products that
> assume no relations or even lists (ordered tuples) within our data models.

Agreed here as well. RVAs are simple to damn useful to omit.

> I'll try to catch up with the other postings here and pitch in again -- I'd
> like everyone to agree with me on this one. ;-)

Good luck with that. :-)

Marshall Received on Sun Oct 10 2004 - 23:11:31 CDT