Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

dawn wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > choices on what was current in 1970.
>
> I looked for the last time that there seemed to be general agreement
> ;-)

LOL
> > 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.

I guess I'm not much interested in figuring out what the authorities (or authority-wannabes) say. It seems to me that if you want a term for relations with further structure that just the classical definition of 1NF, you could say "nested relations" and stand a pretty good chance of being understood. Anyway, if we're trying to figure out what we'd like in a system, we should probably be saying exactly what the features are rather than relying on very broad terms.  

> Gotta run, I'll try to catch the rest later.

Marshall Received on Sat Feb 18 2006 - 06:44:28 CET