Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:fOadnYRyxs973ePcRVn-oQ_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:clkdk6$abl$1_at_news.netins.net...
>
> > ABSOLUTELY!! OK, so who in the database world thinks that there is
> anything
> > useful in talking about data in 1NF? Are we ready to ditch it
completely
> > and talk about data in 2NF & 3NF without requiring them in the
meaningless
> > 1NF first? --dawn
>
> I am ready to talk about this. I have been for months.

And it sounds like Alfredo is too, along with Marshall and others. We might even be able to get, dare I say it -- consensus!

> But please, please, PLEASE don't use the terms 2NF and 3NF to name these
new
> normal forms. Make up new names for them, like "Dawn Normal Form", and
> "Daylight Normal Form". Otherwise, we'll go down the same rat hole we
> went down with "relation" vs. "relation" or "logical table" vs
> "physical table". We just don't need the distraction.

Date uses 2NF and 3NF even though completely changing the def of 1NF underneath, but we don't have to. If we put my name in there I might be able to sell some books (although I'd have to write one first) but I just don't think it would help the concept catch on ;-)

I love words and names, so I'll do some thinking about what might make sense. Do you think we should dismiss the term "normalizing" too since that implies the old 1NF? Then we can move beyond SQL, data normalization, and RDBMS's in one fell swoop, right? Good deal. smiles. --dawn Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 15:04:30 CEST