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

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.moc> wrote in message news:YYgOd.334094$8l.51433_at_pd7tw1no...
> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
>
> ...
>> compared to other models. I think someone was right on when they
>> suggested that if Date & Darwin want to redefine 1NF, then they should
>> call the new model by another name.
> ...
>
> that's like saying 'atomic theory' should be renamed merely because the
> term pre-dates the discovery of muons, pesons and so forth.

I understand your point. However, I would suggest that there is a point where making a change to the way a theory is communicated makes the previous communication to that theory so different that it unnecessarily hinders communication. If Alfredo and Alan are both discussing relational theory while reading different current, respected authors in the field and they mean very different things when talking about such central concepts as "relation" and "normalize", then it would be helpful to have different terms for these two different models, don't you think?

> i'd say D&D are simply REFINING their definition, which seems in the
> spirit of progress to me. it takes guts to admit one's past imprecisions.

But perhaps a bit of (maybe acceptable) arrogance to make such a unilateral change? If there were agreement among a significant group of practitioners and theorists that the theory were flawed (which is was, so you can count me in on that) then we can make the change without adding new terms, but when a few folks change the definitions of terms that are used regularly across the board in practice and theory, then they are coming up with something different that needs to be discussed and compared with the old. It is very difficult to discuss when all of the terms are the same, but with the meanings changed.

--dawn

<snip> Received on Wed Feb 09 2005 - 16:36:17 CET