Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:28:02 -0400
Message-ID: <I92dnRjgY75xjx3cRVn-3g_at_comcast.com>
"erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message news:1098905384.457294.267420_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't think it's that cut-and-dried; the old definition was
> meaningless, because it described something true of all relations. Only
> someone distinguishing "1NF relations" from non-1NF relations would
> have an issue, and I'd argue that yes, those papers should be
> discarded, since they worked in the immediate vicinity of 1NF and
> non-1NF without ever delving into what they really meant! It would
> depend on the paper...
It is most certainly NOT the case that all relations were in what Ted Codd
called "normal form" in the 1970 paper.
It is most certainly NOT the case that the definition of "normal form" in
the 1970 paper was "meaningless".
One may argue, as some in this forum do, that it was not useful. But to
say that it was meaningless is to
misrepresent history.
I'm hoping you'll agree that what was called "normal form" in the 1970 paper became known as "first normal form" in 1972 when second and third normal forms were introduced.
And, regardless of whether Date's redefinition of either "relation" or 1NF (I'm not sure which it is, from the discussion in here), was a step forward or not, we need to remember what the 1970 paper did for IT. I am certain that C.J. Date would agree. Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 23:28:02 CEST