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

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news: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
>>> breaking other things in the attempt.
>>>
>>What is he breaking?
>
> The unity between the Relational Model and the open ended collection
> of scalar types.
>

Since when did this become a requirement or property of a relationally complete system? Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog?

Here is the logic as I see it:
1. I support the notion of and deeply desire a unity between RM and an open ended collection of scalar types.
2. The framer of the relational model used the term atomicity which impedes this objective.
3. Thus, the framer's formalisms are flawed and outdated. We will use new "corrected" definitions.

<snip>

> They have some flaws, and they are outdated because we have corrected
> definitions.

I am yet to be convinced, but I'm willing to be open-minded and think about it some more.
>
>
> Regards

• Dan