Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:20:24 -0400
Message-ID: <k_mdnWmXZbG50uPcRVn-3Q_at_comcast.com>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:clli18$sb4$1_at_news.netins.net...

> I love words and names, so I'll do some thinking about what might make
> sense. Do you think we should dismiss the term "normalizing" too since
that
> implies the old 1NF? Then we can move beyond SQL, data normalization, and
> RDBMS's in one fell swoop, right? Good deal. smiles. --dawn

Fair enough. I'll wait for you to choose names.

I don't think we need to get rid of the word "normalizing". The word "normalizing" has had meaning in the world of mathematics, before it was applied to relations. And I think that Codd's use of the tern "relations in normal form" (later "relations in first normal form") was intended to be consistent with the larger concept of "normal forms" in mathematics.

Dismissing first normal form doesn't invalidate the idea of "normal forms of data" at all.

Moving beyond 1NF, SQL and RDBMSs are separable issues. I don't think there is much to be gained by binding them together. Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 15:20:24 CEST

Original text of this message