Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
Date: 17 Feb 2006 14:21:47 -0800
Marshall Spight wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
> Strunk and White advises "omit needless words."
> Maybe the industry should have done that instead of asking Bill G for
> > ">
> > > So to communicate
> > > this concept, you shouldn't say you're against normalization.
> > I am using the meaning of the term when the term was coined for use
> > with data. I can point to the appropriate references each time I use
> > the term so that there is not misunderstanding. We have the same
> > problem with 1NF as Date now has that include relation-valued
> > attributes.
> I really don't think it's a good idea to base your terminological
> on what was current in 1970.
I looked for the last time that there seemed to be general agreement ;-)
> By that metric, when you say "a modern
> statically typed language" I should understand you to mean Fortran or
> Cobol. Instead, I think you should use terminology in a way that is
> current. It is of course your choice.
Although Date now defines 1NF differently, I think he has been consistent in defining "normalization" to be equivalent to 1NF. p149 An Introduction to Database Systems 8e. What are the definitions competing with this one (which seems to include Codd, Date, Darwen, Pascal and others) and who should I look to for the best definitions from those camps? Even if I use the terms consistent with Codd, I can at least give a nod to other definitions.
> Okay, I see you're doing it top-down whereas I'm advocating bottom
> up; that's simply a different but valid approach. But I would request
> that you not just stay at the top, and ground your arguments with
> specific features. At least at some point.
> I'm sorry, but where did that come from? Weren't we talking
> about databases a minute ago?
We were talking about quality/non-functional requirements (security is
an ility) and how you handle them.
> > The fact that no such emperical data were collected at the start of
> > moving a large portion of the industry over to the relational model
> > might have been a mistake.
> Or it might not.
> We can go round and round on this one and not
> get anywhere. Let's not do that.
> > That said, OK, Marshall, I hear you that much of this audience might
> > have no interest in testing the usefulness of theories in this way.
> I guess that's one of your subtle digs. Ha ha! Nice one.
:-) Thanks for "getting" me AND laughing.
Gotta run, I'll try to catch the rest later. --dawn Received on Fri Feb 17 2006 - 23:21:47 CET