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

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:51:45 GMT
Message-ID: <41af01bb.3645796@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
>> breaking other things in the attempt.
>>
>What is he breaking?

The unity between the Relational Model and the open ended collection of scalar types.

>> "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model "outdated" or "incorrect".

They have some flaws, and they are outdated because we have corrected definitions.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 - 05:51:45 CST