So let me get this right: (Was: NFNF vs 1NF ...)
Date: 9 Feb 2005 17:52:25 -0800
Message-ID: <1108000345.920684.68440_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Codd said (something like) "relational valued (ie. non-atomic) values in attributes not OK"
Date et. al. said: "Relational value attributes OK."
Codd said (something like) "NULLs OK"
Date et. al said: "$_at_#^ ^$^$%@ 7$%%^ with yer $%#@$%kin' NULLs!"
Early Systems Builders Said: "Hey! Bag data model makes runtime more efficient an' we got a consistent algebra for bags." Date et al. said "$%_at_#%kin' Bags! Are you morons? Pharg! Uneducated rabble!"
Object-Relational Systems Builders said: "Hmm. We can support user-defined types without them needing order." Date et. al. said "When you define a domain, you gotta define order!"
Date et. al. said: "The relational model needs no extension, no correction, no subsumption, and above all no perversion."
Wierd how Date et. al. haven't seen an extension or correction that they actually liked, except for the ones they dreamed up themselves. Yet all of their ideas (which do place outside the mainstream) are just fineandandythankyouverymuch. Received on Thu Feb 10 2005 - 02:52:25 CET