Re: Proposal: 6NF

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1161364407.012160.160770_at_f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1161356879.600549.316550_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > It is easy enough to ignore those from whom you think you have
nothing
> > > to learn.
> >
> > You said it Dawn! For the last five years,
>
> that long? I'm thinkin' 4 tops, but OK.
>
> > you've been ignoring all of us who have been trying to teach you that
the
> > relational data model is, after
> > all, a good model, and that you can build highly successful
applications
> > upon it.
>
> I'm surprised you would say that, David. I've learned a lot from you
> and others. There are a few points, such as 3VL vs 2VL and 1NF vs NF2
> topics, where I might hold an unpopular position and have not been
> swayed otherwise, but the industry seems to be nudging in my direction
> too, so that I can meet it half-way and not have to buy into the same
> relational theory that I once did. It is not unusual that if a woman
> is not swayed by the argument of a man, she might be told she is
> ignoing reason, but I'm surprised you think I've ignored you (and
> others).
>
> I also happen to be well-aware that highly successful applications have
> been built upon it. The relational model has definitely been a big
> industry hit.
>
> > But then, you think we've all been duped by marketing hype.
>
> Nope, I wouldn't put it that way.

But you have put it that way in the past! Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 21:50:39 CEST