Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF
Date: 14 Oct 2004 18:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <3e68f717.0410141738.5a248ae2_at_posting.google.com>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:<ckcqt3$3o1$1_at_news.netins.net>...
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pI2dncO9sK7WpvjcRVn-uQ_at_comcast.com...
> <snip>
>
[snip]
I interject here even at the risk of interrupting the love fest going on in this thread.
> 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.
>
> As I suspect I've said before -- I can use the "mathematical model" of a
> point as a metaphor/model for God or I could use a triangle. Each of these
> metaphors (which is what a mathematical model is) gives some information.
> The fact that a point is simpler than a triangle does not make it the better
> mathematical model for God. Simpler mathematics does not mean better model,
> period.
>
Whatever this means... The implementation of the model can be
arbitrarily complex, but the model as it appears to a user of limited
bandwidth, should be simple.
> 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.
I look forward to hearing and seeing your proposal for alternatives, as I've stated numerous times over the years (and still waiting). I might add that this argument has been going back and forth between object-oriented database and relational proponents for quite a long time.
Your assertion about complexity has been been demonstrated a thousand-fold if you look at this real world example. Unfortunately [for ODBMSs], the value added from implementing such complexity hasn't been enough to justify the expense or the wide-spread interest of the IT community over that of "simpler" models.
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.
>
You know, it was only a year or so back when you would have been (and were) lambasted in this newsgroup for such statements. I certainly hope people understand that this is an opinion, which I respect as such and nothing more, and not necessarily theory.
[Snip]
Regards,
- Dan