Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:59:23 -0300
Message-ID: <4727d36d$0$14879$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>

Marshall wrote:

> On Oct 30, 10:39 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>I would like to see more heavy thinkers thinking about 6NF.

>
> You've hinted at this idea before. I make no claims about
> being a heavy thinker, but I've generally found your ideas
> to be worth pursuing. Do you have any suggestions for
> what I should be reading, before I start doing any
> thinking? :-)

I don't know about reading but a good skim of /Temporal Data and the Relational Model/ by Date, Darwen and Lorentzos might get some juices flowing. And if I recall correctly Fabian may have had a word or two to say in /Practical Issues.../ Frankly, I don't know whether anyone else has even looked at 6NF.

6NF has apparent utility for temporal data, and I think it seems to have utility for partially known data. At the same time, current syntaxes seem a little awkward when working with 6NF. The question is: What short-hands would facilitate working with 6NF data? What is the significance, if any, of those short-hands?

> I have a vague, vague thought about there being
> a correction between 6NF and relations-as-logic.
>
> Marshall
Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 19:59:23 CDT