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

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

...
> compared to other models. I think someone was right on when they suggested
> that if Date & Darwin want to redefine 1NF, then they should call the new
> model by another name.
...

that's like saying 'atomic theory' should be renamed merely because the term pre-dates the discovery of muons, pesons and so forth.

i'd say D&D are simply REFINING their definition, which seems in the spirit of progress to me. it takes guts to admit one's past imprecisions.

my personal cut, having once listened to Codd explain databases in terms of Christie Brinkley's 'phone number, is that incisive minds like his have little patience for revisionists. nobody can prove it now but i'd bet that his original point about 'atomic' values was merely a kind of place-holder while he was on his way to making his other points. he was trying to cover a lot of ground against tremendous resistance such as the powerful IMS marketeers in his own company.

pc Received on Wed Feb 09 2005 - 06:12:24 CET