Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2006 17:40:57 -0800, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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
>
> That is very close to "I have a hammer. Every problem is a
> nail."

It seems more to me like "If I have a square peg in my hand, why did you give me a round hole to put it."

> >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
>
> You can also jump off a bridge and spread the word about that.
> How do you know you are not doing the analogous here?

People have been doing it successfully for more than forty years. But I have more rationale than that -- enough to start writing it up better.

> >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
>
> *We* do not.

OK then at least one of us would like to decide. If you know the answer for sure, then I guess you are are correct that I should not have said "we."

> *You* have already decided.

I have an opinion, with plenty of rationale. I do not have proof positive.

> Faced with that sort
> of dogmatism, I tend to wait for the train wreck.

I'm more practical than that when it comes to s/w development. If you have a better way, I'm all ears. But if you bring me some theory that claims to prove it is better than all other approaches (dogmatic) and doesn't seem to be (pragmatic), then I'll speak up. Cheers! --dawn

> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Received on Sat Jan 07 2006 - 14:18:21 CET