Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:26:52 GMT
Message-ID: <g2iZg.155655$5R2.60964@pd7urf3no>

David Cressey wrote:
> "Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1161090234.533844.46810_at_k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> paul c wrote:
>>
>>> Still, the bulk of the apps I've seen
>>> don't need that extended type support ...
>> I couldn't disagree with this observation more strongly. Without a rich
>> type system, we can't talk about the right things (attributes). If we
>> can't talk about the right things, we can't reasonably expect to
>> construct proper statements (relations). As well to make assertions
>> about horse racing by discussing camels :) And to have a rich type
>> system, we'd better make sure the underpinnings are at least consistent
>> and preferably correct ;)

>
> It seems to me that it's possible to talk about the right things with a rich
> domain system,
> even if lacking a rich type system. It also seems to me that user defined
> domains are not the same thing as additional types.
>
>
>
>

PMFJI, when it comes to a dbms engine, I don't know the difference between a type and a domain.

p Received on Tue Oct 17 2006 - 23:26:52 CDT