Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:46:46 -0500
Message-ID: <ckcs6o$4m7$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:znI9d.226953$3l3.30334_at_attbi_s03...
> "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:E5A8d.73084$He1.35772_at_attbi_s01...
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:cjsldr$vui$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > >
> > > Just my $.02. Oh, and by the way, did I mention that XML has one
thing
> > > going for it -- it is not trapped into that silly 1NF rule that has no
basis
> > > in the mathematics of relations. Cheers! --dawn
> >
> > Dawn,
> >
> > Time to refresh my memory. Remind me again what it is you
> > don't like about 1NF. Is it simply that one can't have relations
> > as attributes?
>
> Dawn, I'm still hoping to hear from you. This subthread has
> gotten pretty long, and it's not too useful so far. I'm interested
> in your perspective.
>
>
> Marshall

Sorry, Marshall -- spent an extended weekend out of state with daughter and son-in-law painting the rooms in the house they are building (too much information, I know). I've got a few full days ahead of me but hope to squeeze some cdt "fun" in there too this week, so I'll comment more later.

I just replied to Laconic2 and have only read that one and this one tonight. My answer to his message was really only about why non-1NF is not poor mathematics, but not about how/why it yields better solutions than 1NF for logical data modeling.

I've laid out pieces of a response in previous postings, but I'll work on getting to something suscinct and convincing. I know I'm not there yet. Stay tuned. smiles. --dawn Received on Mon Oct 11 2004 - 04:46:46 CEST

Original text of this message