Re: Proposal: 6NF

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:8dSTg.78337$R63.70243_at_pd7urf1no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1159707552.227184.276470_at_k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> ..
> >
> > What's your proposal for a systematic way of dealing with missing data?
> >
> >
>
> David, PMFJI, I really do think that an enterprise that is truly
> depending on missing data doesn't have a problem that is limited to its
> db, as it will soon go out of business. Actually, I don't really see
> how one can depend on missing data in general and no systematic solution
> is called for. Heh, also think that the IBM approach is best - namely
> It's Better Manually!
>

Paul,

My phrase "a systematic way of dealing with missing data" is from Codd's twelve rules. I think Codd got this one right. Not because the RDM is any more dependent on dealing with missing data than any other data model might be, but because, in the real world, you are going to be faced with the reality that data that "ought to be there" isn't there.

You either have a systematic way of dealing with missing data, or you deal with missing data in an unsystematic way, when the eventuality happens. Which is worse?

 I didn't intend the inference that you drew, that a company should design its data strategy around dependency on missing data. I do think that a system that a company depends on should not choke up and refuse to work if some item of expected data is not present.

I also don't believe that "it's better manually". Manual systems also have ways of dealing with missing data. Sometimes they depend on "common sense" on the part of the people in the system. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think a good, well designed system that incorporates a systematic way of dealing with missing data can be significantly more robust that a system that relies on uncommon levels of common sense. Received on Tue Oct 03 2006 - 22:10:12 CEST