Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:51:48 -0500
Message-ID: <clmdde$b60$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news: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 re-read Dates latest Intro... and it appears that the def of BCNF does not require 1NF. So, I think we could ditch 1, 2 and 3NF and just use BCNF as a starting point. I'm very excited to realize this since I had thought that all "higher normal forms"required 1NF as a starting point, but that appears not to be the case. Does this sound right to others? --dawn

> 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 - 22:51:48 CEST

Original text of this message