Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF
From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:41:48 -0400
Message-ID: <cu16kc.6fn.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
>
> I disagree.
>
>
> The main issue is that the "atomic" term does not have an absolute
> meaning and we can not base any formal definition on it. Codd's
> definition is not valid.
>
>
> An objection that does not make sense because she is objecting a
> meaningless requirement. We can't define what "atomic" means in a
> precise way. It is all a byzantine discussion.
>
>
> But you are showing that you don't understand the issue very well
> currently.
>
>
> Regards
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:41:48 -0400
Message-ID: <cu16kc.6fn.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<CbydnaMpAdDJq_vcRVn-gQ_at_comcast.com>...
>
>> There's no need for Kenneth or me to go off to Date's writings.
>
> I disagree.
>
>> If you will recall, Dawn started a discussion in here a few months ago >> with >> the (somewhat wry) title of "Date's first great blunder." In that >> article, the difference between Date's formulation of 1NF and Codd's >> formulation of 1NF was outlined pretty clearly.
>
> The main issue is that the "atomic" term does not have an absolute
> meaning and we can not base any formal definition on it. Codd's
> definition is not valid.
>
>> Equally clear, at least to me, was that >> Dawn's objection to 1NF was based on the requirement that column values >> be >> atomic, and not based on the difference between a bag and a set.
>
> An objection that does not make sense because she is objecting a
> meaningless requirement. We can't define what "atomic" means in a
> precise way. It is all a byzantine discussion.
>
>> I don't know if Kenneth was reading the forum at that time. If not, Ken, >> the subject was pretty much beaten to death at that time. There was a >> lot >> of "people hearing without listening" going on.
>
> But you are showing that you don't understand the issue very well
> currently.
>
>
> Regards
End of conversation.
Laconic2: I'll check out that thread Dawn started, thanks for the pointer.
-- Kenneth Downs Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to email meReceived on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 14:41:48 CEST