Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads

"Alan" <not.me_at_rcn.com> wrote in message news:36qgunF4ut60pU1_at_individual.net...
>
> "Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1107817027.196841.324050_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>
> They do exist as encapsultaed data elements, but you are comingling the
> Relational Model and an implementation.

I did say we were supposing, didn't I?

When modeling the data (in the
> Relational Model world), one sticks to the rules of normalization.

[snip]
> Just because you can model something relationally, and then go off of that
> model during implementation, it does not make the non-relational items
> relational. You no longer have a normalized database, that's all. It's not
> good or bad, it's just (hopefully) appropriate for what you need to do.

I think we'll have to recognize and respect the idea that we have a different perspective on this. My belief is that if the RM is unaware of the contents or internal (particularly logical) representation of some type, it is outside the bounds of the "data model" and normalization rules. If I understand you, you are of the opinion that this encapsulation is irrevalent, and all internal logical structure is part of the data model. I think we can agree to disagree on this point.

• Dan