Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2006 18:40:46 -0800, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I think of modeling data with both tags (domain names) and values.
> >Take a simple screen for displaying a person's first name, last name,
> >all values for e-mail address and first names of all children. We can
> >surely model this data with multiple relations and we could also use a
> >single relation with nested relations to model it if we add in data for
> >ordering, but we cannot model this view of the data with an SQL view.
> >We could potentially have a cartesian product view that includes all of
> >the data for the screen, but it does not use the same data model as the
> >view. The data model for the screen is not in 1st normal form and SQL
> >requires 1NF.
>
> A screen is not a database. It is more like a report. There is
> no reason for it to be in 1NF.

Correct. But whether I'm modeling data for a user interface, a message, or a database, I don't see why I would want to use a different data modeling approach if I don't have to. I would like to do end-to-end data modeling without 1NF and with a 2VL. And I can, so I'm planning to spread the word. There is no reason to go through the headaches and risks of an impedence mismatch anywhere between a UI or message and the database. I don't expect you will tell me I'm right, Gene, but I do have a viable approach -- one that works. So, now how do we decide who has the better strategy? Cheers! --dawn  

> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Received on Thu Jan 05 2006 - 02:40:57 CET