Re: foundations of relational theory?

I can see that you think my opinions are flawed -- are there some facts I am not getting right? Codd was accurate in his 1970 paper when he makes it clear that mathematical relations can include relations as elements. Later he makes it clear that there are added complexities if relations include relations (and surely that does add some complexities when looking at defining functions such as 'update') but then Codd seems to take a religious stance, rather than a proven one to claim that this complexity comes without adequate benefit so it is to be dismissed. I have found no proof in any of Codd's, Date's, or others' writings to suggest there is mathematical evidence, nor even scientific or statistical evidence to back up that claim.

Is there some mathematical theorem or any other proof that storing data in first normal form is bad or is this just a religion that the masses have been buying into for the past few decades? Clearly the XML doc specifiers have opted to leave that one in the dust. Is that because they, like me, are fools? Sticks and stones ...

Show me the math! Show me the math! I'm willing to be persuaded if there really is some scientific evidence to prove that the relational model is the WAY, the TRUTH, and ... If what we have is a database religion, then let's be clear about that and not teach it to college students as if it has a full mathematical heritage. Codd's 1970 paper was mathematics from beginning to end, as I recall it, but his 1974 paper with normalizing and such was mathematics PLUS a set of beliefs that have, to my knowledge, no mathematical basis.

I'd be happy to be pointed to the full mathematical or scientific evidence that it is less expensive, better quality, easier to maintain, etc when data is persisted in a first normal form model, for example. It is possible that I'm just not smart, over the hill, or missing something right under my nose, but I am on an honest search to figure out why so many people think that the relational model is all science. My experience tells me that the relational model is not the best there is for a) agile development b) software maintenance c) data quality nor d) software quality. But I was still a believer until I read a lot of the theory in search of a full mathematical explanation and found there wasn't one -- there were gaps where the reader simply had to buy into the same belief system as the authors in the "well, of course, we would want to persist only simple relations because that would be less costly with no corresponding benefits". Does that sound like math or religion to you?

Cheers! --dawn

"Anith Sen" <anith_at_bizdatasolutions.com> wrote in message news:<ytphb.8615$Eo2.8218_at_newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >> ........In my opinion, that would be like stating that English
> propositions should be written without compound subjects or predicates
> because it can be and making it more complex adds complexity without adding
> power. There is no mathematics that suggests that data should be stored in
> first normal form. There are several other myths in RDBMS theory ........
> <<
>
> How about some books on database concepts & data management principles?
> Date's Intro book can help.
>
> >>....I have a master's degree in mathetmatics, and it seems to me that
> Codd's use of simple relations for persisting language propositions is
> flawed at its core. The mathematics of language ......It's time to kill the
> relational model and gain some agility back into the development process --
> right? Cheers! <<
>
> Apparently a master's degree does not equate to knowledge. You have got
> almost everything wrong and/or baseless here.
Received on Sat Oct 11 2003 - 07:34:29 CEST