Re: So let me get this right: (Was: NFNF vs 1NF ...)

On 9 Feb 2005 17:52:25 -0800, "DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

>Codd said (something like) "relational valued (ie. non-atomic) values
>in attributes not OK"

Where Codd said that relational valued attributes are not OK?

>Codd said (something like) "NULLs OK"
>Date et. al said: "$_at_#^ ^$^$%@ 7$%%^ with yer $%#@$%kin' NULLs!"

Agreed :)

>Early Systems Builders Said: "Hey! Bag data model makes runtime more
>efficient an' we got a consistent algebra for bags."

But bag data model makes rutime far less efficient.

>Date et. al. said "When you define a domain, you gotta define order!"

Where?

I never readed that.

What you have to define is equality (or sameness if you prefer).

>Date et. al. said: "The relational model needs no extension, no
>correction, no subsumption, and above all no perversion."

But it needs correct interpretation.

>Wierd how Date et. al. haven't seen an extension or correction that
>they actually liked, except for the ones they dreamed up themselves.

They haven't see extension or correction to the RM, but they have corrected some mistakes in its interpretation.

Regards Received on Thu Feb 10 2005 - 12:45:24 CET