Re: Proposal: 6NF

David Cressey wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161356879.600549.316550_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It is easy enough to ignore those from whom you think you have nothing
> > to learn.
>
> You said it Dawn! For the last five years,

that long? I'm thinkin' 4 tops, but OK.

> you've been ignoring all of us who have been trying to teach you that the
> relational data model is, after
> all, a good model, and that you can build highly successful applications
> upon it.

I'm surprised you would say that, David. I've learned a lot from you and others. There are a few points, such as 3VL vs 2VL and 1NF vs NF2 topics, where I might hold an unpopular position and have not been swayed otherwise, but the industry seems to be nudging in my direction too, so that I can meet it half-way and not have to buy into the same relational theory that I once did. It is not unusual that if a woman is not swayed by the argument of a man, she might be told she is ignoing reason, but I'm surprised you think I've ignored you (and others).

I also happen to be well-aware that highly successful applications have been built upon it. The relational model has definitely been a big industry hit.

> But then, you think we've all been duped by marketing hype.

Nope, I wouldn't put it that way.

> >
> > I would, however, prefer a lot less of the name-calling as there are
> > some who contribute to it often not being a pleasant or classy group,
> > which is a shame.
>
> Agreed.

And we agree on more than just that, but a bunch of chatter over that on which we agree might be quite dull. Cheers! --dawn Received on Fri Oct 20 2006 - 19:13:27 CEST