Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:09:31 -0400
Message-Id: <oqevi2-9q7.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net>

Tony Andrews wrote:

> Kenneth Downs wrote:

>> The relational model is permanently hobbled by normalization.

> Normalization

>> provides an astoundingly simple and powerful way to pursue

> conformance, but

>> it has nothing to offer in the area of *completeness*.  A normalized
>> database is required to be incomplete, to be missing data that is

> valuable

>> to the computer's human masters, data that would serve them well by

> its

>> existence and which causes confusion and expense by its absence.

>
> Please explain: how does normalization require a database to be
> incomplete, missing data? If you mean the relationships between data
> in tables/relations, then that is what referential integrity
> constraints are for!

A column like extended=price*qty violates 3rd normal form and "does not belong", hence my comment later in my post that pure database theorists will throw away data to preserve a theory.

A useful database will contain data that goes beyond normalization into automation. What interested me in the OP was my own question: what theory guides the definition, generation, and protection of automoated data?

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)

Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 07:09:31 CDT