Re: foundations of relational theory?

Apologies for the typo -- paragraph 2 should say "Is there some ... that storing data that is NOT in first normal form is bad ..." --dawn

dwolt_at_iserv.net (Dawn M. Wolthuis) wrote in message news:<6db906b2.0310102134.6801804c_at_posting.google.com>...
> 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 Sun Oct 12 2003 - 05:07:45 CEST