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

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:36ph58F53udikU1_at_individual.net...
>
> Okay, I will cite a well respected source supporting my position, then you
> do the same. From "Fundamentals of Database Systems, Third Edition",
> Elmasri/Navathe, pages 485-487 Addison-Wesley, 2000:
>
> "First normal form (1NF) is now considered to be part of the formal
> definition of a relation in the basic (flat) relational model

[snip]

> Your _opinion_ is not solicited. Cite some facts from a published source.

You felt free to express your opinion, i.e. Elmasri/Navathe are "a well respected source", so I will feel free to say that people who describe the n-dimensional relational model as "flat" are twits, to be roundly ignored, and anyone who publicly claims to respect them is in danger of the same fate.

Truth is not determined by respect (any more than by repetition).

But here is Codd himself, in The Relational Model for Database Management Version 2: an atomic value "cannot be decomposed into smaller pieces *by the DBMS*". (My emphasis.)

But I return to my claim that this is irrelevant. If you can point out some argument that he (or anyone else) subsequently (or prevously) makes when elucidating the (Codd) relational model, that seems to depend on the DBMS being able to, or needing to, or needing NOT to "decompose" a value, then you win. To my eye, that is a target the size of a barn door, so fire away.

Simple contraditions won't do (even if they come from Codd).

Roy Received on Wed Feb 09 2005 - 18:49:25 CET