Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:cm93fd$g11$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message
> news:1099431388.630616.174500_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]
>
> It makes sense to bring it up since I have yet to PROVE all of my
> concerns.
> I have proven, I think, that 1NF as currently implemented by most software
> developers (the old version of 1NF) has no mathematical basis.

What is this proof, pray tell. I've asked for a demonstration already where attributes of a relation are anything less than an elements in the mathematical or logical sense when operated upon by relational operators.

Since others
> have already ditched it, or redefined it to the point where every relation
> is necessarily in 1NF, that is just a start.

That is not a proof and it certainly doesn't convince me. Just because others have *implemented* variants that are non-1NF doesn't make it any more of a viable theoretical model, despite the fact that most conversations address this piecemeal and sometimes in an ad hoc way. I would prefer to see it addressed as theoretical model as a whole than see it presented as a series of iterative heuristics.

Moreover, there are several practical issues that present themselves. We cast out a simple and consistent system of logic in the form of a query language over queryable elements without presenting a replacement or alternative.

A simple model which is conducive to cheap, dynamic optimisation algorithms using semantic or logical transformation might no longer be able to leverage the same formal framework in terms of query decomposition and normalization.

The definition of logical and physical independence will in all likelyhood have to be readdressed to clearly demonstrate and define at what level nesting occurs - the base logical level, at the physical level, at an external level, etc. This might seem self-evident to some, such as our esteemed Java programmers out there, but it isn't clear to me.

As I've said before, casting out 1NF and creating a sexier and extended model of database management might be of both value and be achievable. But I am not certain as to what cost and to what extent complexity would be added. I think that if it were trivial, Codd wouldn't have constrained himself to 1NF. I am also of the opinion that Codd didn't rule out a more complex model for the same reason that I don't rule it out.

There is a reason why analog communications and analog switches in communications networks are going by the wayside. They are sufficient and maybe even superior for the application they support, switching and conveying analog signals, but they aren't sufficiently general enough to scale for multiple applications, nor are they cost-efficient. Moreover, they are more complex and error-prone.

In much the same way, I wonder how much benefit gets from adding this complexity to the data model. What is this fascination with binding a data layer with an application layer, and with such close coupling?

[snip]

• Dan