Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads

"Alan" <not.me_at_rcn.com> wrote in message news:36lbt1F50dlt4U1_at_individual.net...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:cu2llf$jq3$1_at_news.netins.net...
>> "Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:36htmvF54uqs0U1_at_individual.net...
>> <snip>
> You remind me of someone who keeps changing from psychiatrist to
> psychiatrist until finding one that tells you what you want to hear.
> Congratulations, you found Dr. Alfredo Novoa. I'm done. I only wish I
> never
> got into this again with you from last year. I never learn. Maybe this
> time.
> You know what, if you could please do me a favor? Stop me next time.

I apologize for your frustration, Alan. Perhaps you should read Date and/or Darwin's current works so you can see where both Alfredo and I are getting the idea that 1NF has been redefined by Date and his followers. You should be able to find plenty on dbdebunk.com related to 1NF. Not everyone in the relational world follows Date's lead on such matters, but many do, so you might want to read up.

Along with reading Date's 8th edition of Intro to DB Systems, I also read the two 1NF papers from
http://www.dbdebunk.com/publications.html. which I can recommend even though they cost a few bucks to download. I believe the Date-Darwin definition is also in The Third Manifesto and likely also in earlier writings by Darwen. Since I did go out and buy a book you recommended, perhaps you will download those papers (I'm now a marketing person for Date & Pascal; I hope they appreciate it ;-) I'm certain that then you will see where I'm coming from on this.

You must come from another school of relational theory or you are not up to date (or is that Date). If you are from another camp within relational theory (I don't know what factions exist in relational theory) can you point me to any rebuttals of the Date-Darwin new definition of 1NF? Thanks.

--dawn Received on Sun Feb 06 2005 - 03:54:43 CET