Re: A Normalization Question

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:2l2btjF813i3U1_at_uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b45d3ad.0407061849.580874d6_at_posting.google.com...
> > > Yes, [RM] has limitations, but normalizing data is not one of them.
> > > The RM defines normalization.
> >
> > RM defines a limited form of normalization. The general form of
> > normalization which is the central theme to all xNFs (where x may be
> > infinite), allows one to identify 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' as being
> > redundant which XDb1/TDM normalizes.
> >
> > > You just refuse to accept normalization ...
> >
> > I accept the general form of normalization that can be applied to all
> > data models and allows one to recognize that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown'
> > is redundant. I refuse to accept RM's limited form of normalization as
> > the general form of normalization which doesn't allow one to recognize
> > that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is redundant.\
>
> It's not, it's not, it's not. You can preach this nonsense till the cows
> come home, but it will never be true. Several examples have been provided
to
> you.
>
> >
> > > > A better reference is C.J. Date's "An Intro to Database Systems"...
> > >
> > > How does that make it better?
> > > Anyways how would you know it is better since you never read Navathe?
> >
> > While I have not read all 873 pages of Elmasri/Navathe's "Fund of Db
> > Sys" 2nd Ed that sits several books under my C.J. Date's "Intro to Db
> > Sys" 6th Ed, I have read enough of it to know that compared to that of
> > Date's p288-9, their fundamental explanation of normalization on p407
> > is limited: "Normalization of data can be looked on as a process
> > during which unsatisfactory relation shemas are decomposed by breaking
> > up their attributes into smaller relations schemas that possess
> > desirable properties". C.J. Date's is better because his fundamental
> > explanation comes closer to the general form of normalization that can
> > be applied to data in any model, even those that don't have any
> > relations.
>
> That's on old version, maybe 12 years old. They are up to 4th Ed. now.
>
> Anyway, As I stated elswhere, I give up.
>
>
Don't give up!

I see this discussion as very beneficial to the entire group, or at least for me. It forces everyone to revisit the fundementals and re-examine our own understanding of them.

Actually, if Neo's ideas were practical at the physical level and he never introduced his form of "normalization" to the logical user level as a form of data model, I wouldn't have an issue with his "implementation" at all as long as it behaved functionally as a user would expect -- operations and inference rules over semantics units.

• Dan