Re: On Normalisation & the State of Normalisation

Clarification

> On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 13:11:05 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:

> Therefore full data quality, constraints beyond DKNF (5NF if you don't like DKNF), the full RM, are beyond the scope of this thread, let's limit this to:
> ____Normalisation____
> ____Normalisation wrt to the RM____

That first line should be:
____Normalisation as a science____
I am so used to it being a science, not a bag of nuffs, I forgot to state it in every case.

> Answer the questions in sequence, please. No point in going to [2] if you reject it at [1], etc.

In case it needs to be said, I am not trying to control the way you think. If you perceive the order of relevance/dismissal in the question as different to mine, go right ahead with your sequence.

2.1 The developer was also relying of a paperweight (shorthand for weighty paper) named ETNF. I asked him to explain it in three sentences or less. After half an hour of listening patiently to his monologue, I had to ask him to vacate the office due to my next appointment standing outside. But I did gather that he had a novel method of guaranteeing uniqueness, which I found absurd, because uniqueness has never been a problem that needed to be solved.

Cheers
Derek Received on Tue Feb 03 2015 - 07:24:41 CET