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

From: Dan <guntermann_at_verizon.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:12:23 GMT
Message-ID: <XU2Od.15848$uc.8547@trnddc08>

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ps7h01ls8sd0mdkq7ro88fgdlbongjrd3u_at_4ax.com...
> On 7 Feb 2005 11:03:55 -0800, "Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I have the Elmasri/Navathe text at home as well; and I use it as my
>>primary reference of choice along with Date's "Introduction...". I
>>think the definition provided by them is totally valid.
>
> Date's and Elmasri/Navathe's definitions are incompatible.
>
> It is clear to me that Date is right and Elmasri and Navathe are not.
>

So Date was wrong in editions 1-7, where his definition and treatment of 1NF does correspond to what Elmasri and Navathe say? If he was wrong for so long, how do we know for sure that he is right now? What makes you so sure? And since when is there only one model in the world?

>
> Regards
>

Received on Tue Feb 08 2005 - 07:12:23 CST