Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:54:55 GMT
Message-ID: <jjBWg.116550$5R2.58117_at_pd7urf3no>


dawn wrote:

> Hugo Kornelis wrote:

>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:29:29 GMT, paul c wrote:
>>
>>> Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>> Because relational databases supporting NULL *define* it as a marker
>>>> denoting the absence of a value. Dawn actually makes a good point about
>>>> context: in C for instance, NULL has a completely different meaning.
>>>> ...
>>> Since it has a different meaning in C, there is no point bringing C into
>>> play here.
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> The point I was trying to make is that NULL has different meaning in
>> different context. Using C as example was a bad choice, since it
>> obfuscated what I was trying to convey, rather than clarifying it.
>>
>> The meaning of NULL in the context of SQL is also quite different from
>> the meaning of NULL in Pick (and possibly other MV databases). That's
>> what I wanted to write, and what I should have written in the first
>> place. Much of the discussion between Cimode and Dawn appears (as I read
>> it) to come from Cimode talking aboout SQL NULL and Dawn talking about
>> Pick NULL - but they both think that the other is discussing the same
>> NULL.
> 
> Thanks for giving your take on that, Hugo, since I was clearly getting
> nowhere.  

What else is new.

You won`t get anywhere as long as you keep comparing apples to oranges, eg., imagining that Pick has a data model that is comparable to what Codd had in mind.

p Received on Tue Oct 10 2006 - 01:54:55 CEST

Original text of this message