Re: A Normalization Question
From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:15:20 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.15.50.120825_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
>
> I am not contending that you do or do not have a pretty good overview
> (of some data models). I am contending you do not know ALL data
> models. And I am not contending that I know ALL data models either. I
> do contend the Thing Model (TM) is more general than RM.
>
>
> Exactly the point, TM is less special. That is why RM is limited and
> can't recognize redundant things until they are arranged in a special
> manner as attribute values of tuples.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:15:20 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2004.07.15.18.15.50.120825_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:38:58 -0700, Neo wrote:
>> > You do not know all data models. >> >> Actualy, I have a pretty good overview
>
> I am not contending that you do or do not have a pretty good overview
> (of some data models). I am contending you do not know ALL data
> models. And I am not contending that I know ALL data models either. I
> do contend the Thing Model (TM) is more general than RM.
>
>> and the data model of XDb1 is certainly nothing special.
>
> Exactly the point, TM is less special. That is why RM is limited and
> can't recognize redundant things until they are arranged in a special
> manner as attribute values of tuples.
"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe."
I'm afraid, Neo, that I cannot *make* you take the red pill, you have to
- Jan Hidders