Re: foundations of relational theory?

>> ..are there some facts I am not getting right? <<

Yes, in fact most of your understanding of 1NF is flawed. You seem to totally ignore the concept of domains, you ignore the fact that "atomicity" is a subjective concept (has no precise definition) and you seem to be have apathy for the entire R&D done in the field of the RM in recent years.

Date recently has an article that clarified some issues on this topic: What 1NF really means (Parts 1 & 2). As for a formal treatment of domains in relational model (including scalar & complex types and representations), read Date's Intro to database systems. Also TTM has a section on non-scalar types including tuple & relation types (IIRC, RM prescriptions 7, 9, 10). For a brief article on how propositions represented based on relational model are logically superior and structurally sound read Relational Database writings 94-97 article: Constraints & Predicates (Parts 1, 2, 3) & especially the concept of relvar constraint. For a grasp on the mathematical support for the notion of constraints, treatment of NFNF (non-first normal form) and how it violates PNF (by Roth, a proposed normalization goal for nested relations) refer to the chapter references in the Book by Atzeni & Antonellis. Pascal's 1993 book on relational databases has a simpler explanation on 1NF, which IMO is truly beneficial to an average database professional.

BTW, it is hard to provide quick references to rectify every conceptual misunderstanding and counterpoint each fallacious MV arguments. Generally, it just warrants the invocation of the Principle of Incoherence.

>> Is there some mathematical theorem or any other proof that storing data
(is NOT) 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? <<

If the "XML doc specifiers" are proposing an alternative data model, yes, they are taking a path, which was proven wrong already, but they aren't aware of it yet.

>> 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 ... <<

You seem not. Moreover, why do you need persuasion?

>> My experience tells me that the relational model is not the best there is
for ....Does that sound like math or religion to you? <<

Neither. It sounds like the inability and/or unwillingness to devote time and effort to comprehend even the most basic concepts in data management.

-- 
-- Anith
( Please reply to newsgroups only )