Re: A question for Mr. Celko

"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:pan.2004.07.17.23.23.54.257337_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:37:00 +0000, Marshall Spight wrote:
> > "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.07.17.10.58.17.83649_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be...
> >>
> >> One criticism I heard is that to simulate the PACK and UNPACK operators
> >> you have to use operators that violate 1NF as it is usually understood.
> >> But note that the exact definition of 1NF is not as well-understood as
> >> one might suppose. Chris Date, for example, apparently has decided to
> >> trivialize the notion.
> >
> > Is there any reason it shouldn't be trivialized? 1NF doesn't seem to do
> > anything but get in the way of things like relation-valued or
> > list-valued attributes.
>
> Good question. I would argue that it keeps things simple. I don't see a
> problem with that at the *user* level but at the *logical* level you want
> to make things as simple as possible for the query optimizer.

Well, orthogonality is also an extremely profound and important concept. We still desire to keep the model, based on FOL, intact and as pure as possible. Wouldn't you agree? 1NF seems to be the most consistent and necessary device in ensuring this. Dropping it really does present some complexities and problems in the model.

Or is there a way to keep the integrity of the model and its basis as FOL without 'trivializing' 1NF the way Date does? Is there a consistent analog for FOL that can be implemented as HOL in the theoretical sense before we even think about how to incorporate it into the relational model? If so, what is the language and model?

Warm Regards,

Dan
[snip]

> -- Jan Hidders
Received on Sun Jul 18 2004 - 05:53:39 CEST