Re: References & Restatement/Clarification

James

> On Friday, 6 February 2015 10:14:01 UTC+11, Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>
> 2. Therefore, if you have times before Mon, when I next expect to post, I recommend that you read those same sections of the RM again, (1.4) plus preceding, with the following in mind. And with the the following notes, side by side.

To be clear. I think you have some respect for Codd, although that is diminished due to the barrage of misinformation from your teachers. Codd's words in the RM are everything. My words are nothing. ____ (Yeah. sure. this whole thread is about confronting the denial re the HM is in the RM, and those words are relevant, but when dealing with the RM proper, my words are nothing, Codd's words are everything.)

Thus the diagrams I have provided, are of mild interest only, and intended to assist in the understanding what Codd meant in the RM, if only because the contemporaneous understanding is missing. suppressed. denied, these days. Whatever you get re Hierarchies in the RM, should be gotten from the RM, not from me.

Thus in the diagrams I have provided, I have used the fewest words possible, and then, only to assist in comprehension of the diagram. - I use Helvetica for titles and Times for text - Specific references to the RM are in Georgia, as it was the RM

> g. IFF you are happy with all the above [a] through [f], AND you have gotten more out of reading the RM with these in mind, THEN and only then, please examine this doc. It is the tables that anyone who accepts the RM, without hindrances such as a blind spot re Hierarchies, would have created, directly from Codd's [1.4 Normal Form] METHOD, from para 1, to the words "R(g).r.d". Nothing more, nothing less. No contemporaneous understanding required. I would call that which he has given __Relational_Normal_Form__

And thus, the pre=requisite Codd has given, although he calls it the "Unnormalised Form" in the context of the RM he is introducing, based on the specific terms used in the pre-requisite, is in fact what could be named the __Hierarchical_Normal_Form__.

We don't have to discuss that, or what it is, or what a good name for it is, but I say that that which is given is indisputable: an hierarchy, a tree, with integrity.

[h] Further, I would say that any configuration of the tables from Codd's example, that is NOT in the rendition that I have given in Relational form, is missing something serious from the RM (Integrity, Power, Speed, any combination of that), to the extent that it is different.

I expect some discussion there. People will want to arrange the tables in some manner that subtracts from the hierarchy I have given, and to that extent, the hierarchy, which is important for understanding the DATA, will not be transmitted to the reader. Likewise, another person may have keys in a sequence other than that which Codd has given, is which case he is rebelling and refusing to accept the whole that Codd has given

Cheers
Derek Received on Fri Feb 06 2015 - 03:32:22 CET