mtassin (10/7/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
mtassin (10/5/2011)
I think a big part of this is the flavor of Normalization Kool-aid we're using.For instance, this paper that's referenced isn't necessarily Normalization Form mainstream.
I find it amusing to see a claim that a seminal paper by the man who id now director of the UCLA Web Information System Lanboratory and holder of UCLA's N. E. Friedmann Chair in Knowledge Science, an associate editor of VLDB Journal, who has been program chair or general chair of VLDB (more than once), SIGMOD CMD, NACLo, NID, EDBT, and chaired HotSWUp in April this year should be dismissed as not necessarily mainstream.
Look, you've been drinking his Kool-aid. And you agree with him.
But I also find no mention of EKNF on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
I'm not saying it's an invalid concept, what I'm saying is that expecting people to know a branch of Normalization that isn't part of the maintstream, and then getting worried when only 2% of us know what the heck you're talking about, and you talking about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread is just silly.
Frankly I find these repeated kool-aid cracks repulsive. I usually try to be less bloody offensive than you seem to regard as the norm for serious technical debate - but of course maybe you don't think this topic is worthy of serious debate.
Ok, maybe I understand where you are coming from. Your concept of what may be useful and relevant is what's in Date's textbook and consequently (since most people think Date walks on water) what's in Wikipedia (without regard to the talk pages, which of course ought to be an essential part of the discussion although you haven't looked there).
I can easily change your view the wikipedia view by changing the page you reference (the inclusion of EKNF on the page you reference was suggested some time ago and has been supported by other comments on the talk page , with no adverse comments at all, so such a change would be perfectly reasonable). I can't change Date's text book, and he won't because he regards the representation principle as nonsense, in distinct conflict with, for example, Ron[ald] Fagin - whom you maybe regard as mainstream as he is responsible for the standard definitions of 4NF and 5NF - as made eminently clear by Date's very public attack on Fagin's DKNF suggestion - although I agree that RF got that one wrong, and CJD was right to challenge it, the style of the attack and some of its content (suggesting that attempting to achieve uany useful degree of representation was a waste of time) was appalling. You appear to be relying on an appeal to an "eminent authority" to suggest that anything you have not been taught by that "eminent authority" is irrelevant in our field of work.
If that's the way you think, I have to accept that that's the way you are and give up on changing your mind - I just have to hope that that silliness doesn't influence other people who may read this discussion.
Tom