Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41ae00ac.11038343_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:35:33 +0100, "Rene de Visser"
> <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.de> wrote:
>>And am I correct in thinking that if we have a relation containing a date
>>e.g. ("Sally", '2004/12/2')
>>we can create an updatable view corresponding to this relation where the
>>tuple looks like:
>>("Sally", 2004, 12, 2)?
>
> You are right.
>
>>It also seems to me that we can consider '2004/12/2' as a atomic from
>>Codds
>>definitions and consider
>>the 2004, 12, 2 to be properties (as defined by Codd) of '2004/12/2'. Or
>>am
>>I missing something here?
>
> You are missing that Codd's definitions are flawed because he used the
> not well defined term: "atomic".
>
> Codd's definitions are outdated.
>
> Regards

Does this mean that the later debates about whether complex values should be allowed in databases,
were debates (and papers) about nothing? Or is there some definition under which these debates make sense?

Though I find it hard to imagine any definition under which the above 'transformations' can not be applied.

Rene. Received on Wed Dec 01 2004 - 20:58:02 CET