Re: Proposal: 6NF

David Cressey wrote:
> "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!

So, maybe I do listen and learn, eh? --dawn Received on Sat Oct 21 2006 - 04:08:19 CEST