Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:m8mdnekuD_WFwxTcRVn-3w_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.com> wrote in message
> news:Kg0id.6107$wP1.5011_at_trnddc09...
> >
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> > news:cm93fd$g11$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > "erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1099431388.630616.174500_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > It makes sense to bring it up since I have yet to PROVE all of my
> > > concerns.
> > > I have proven, I think, that 1NF as currently implemented by most
> software
> > > developers (the old version of 1NF) has no mathematical basis.
> >
> > What is this proof, pray tell. I've asked for a demonstration already
> where
> > attributes of a relation are anything less than an elements in the
> > mathematical or logical sense when operated upon by relational
operators.
> >
>
> I think the following has been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate:
>
> That not all relations (or collections of relations) are in what Codd
called
> "normal form" in the 1970 paper.
> That some relations (or collections of relations) are in "normal form".
> That Codd never claimed a mathematical basis for reuiring "normal form"
in
> the relational data model.
>
> That what Codd called "first normal form" in the followup papers on data
> normalization (1972, 1973) is the same thing as nroaml form in the 1970
> paper.
>
> That, in the only formal definition Codd ever gave of frist normal form
> (called 1NF nowadays), atomicity of attribute values is an essential part
> of the definition.
>
> That the atomicity requirement of 1NF is not part of the formal definition
> of the term "relation" in mathematics.
>
> That Date revised the definition of 1NF so as to remove the atomicity
> requirement. (don't know the year).
> That this revision was based on the pragmatics of IT, not the mathematics
> of relations, since 1NF was not a requirement based on mathematics.

Thank you. Yes, this is what I think has been shown and agreed upon by (most of?) those following the discussion.

> I say all this as one who is NOT convinced of Dawn's opinion that 1NF (a
la
> Codd) was an obstacle to greater progress through the 1080s and 1990s.

1980s and 1990s, yes that is my claim and no, that has not been proven.

> Or
> of her opinion that database constraints are counterproductive or
> submarginal.

As currently implemented, so this is an implementation issue and has to do with "theory" only in terms of theorizing about what a database ought to be/do, not about a model for data.

> These remain to be shown.

Agreed.

> But the fundamental question of whether mathematical relations hinge on
1NF
> a la Codd has been dealt with, as far as I can see.

me too.

> My point is that we have an alternative to going around in circles,
debating
> the same old issues with the same old arguments every time around.

Much appreciated since when I try to move us past this point (repeatedly), I start sounding like a kook. smiles. --dawn Received on Thu Nov 04 2004 - 02:45:17 CET