Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:26 -0300
Message-ID: <47277a60$0$14845$>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> ...

>> It seems he considered them unecessary in the sense one can always 
>> normalize the data to obviate the need for them.

> It seems that way to me too but I'd add that I think he presumed that
> one has applicable "data" in the first place, ie., one has in mind
> enough attributes that have values so as to allow tuples to stand for
> what what has in mind to express, eg., one must be able to distinguish
> different facts by tuple values, otherwise one hasn't determined the
> system's requirements in the first place and we could never agree on
> what the system is supposed to be talking about!

If one lacks data, one hardly needs data management.

I would like to see more heavy thinkers thinking about 6NF. Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 19:39:26 CET

Original text of this message