Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:51:45 GMT
Message-ID: <41af01bb.3645796_at_news.wanadoo.es>
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:42:49 GMT, "Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.com>
wrote:
>> IMO Paul is trying to save the concept of "atomicity", but he is
The unity between the Relational Model and the open ended collection
of scalar types.
>> breaking other things in the attempt.
>>
>What is he breaking?
>> "Atomic" can not be defined precisely and that's all.
>
>"Not decomposable by the DBMS" seems precise enough as a concept or notion
>to me.
This is not valid. Many supposed atomic values are decomposable and "decomposable" is as imprecise as atomic.
>I find it disturbing that some would call Codd's definitions of a formal
>model "outdated" or "incorrect".
They have some flaws, and they are outdated because we have corrected definitions.
Regards Received on Thu Dec 02 2004 - 12:51:45 CET