Tonkuma wrote:

Joe wouldn't know RM1 if it bit him on the ass. Codd's original
specification of 1NF appeared in his 1969 and 1970 papers and had
absolutely nothing to do with the 12 rules some vendor paid him to publish.

Joe is living proof that, if one cannot dazzle with brilliance, one can
always baffle with bullshit instead.


[snip]

Judge: "Why didn't you pay the plaintiff?"
Defendant: "We did pay the plaintiff."
Judge: "Really? How much did you pay the plaintiff?"
Defendant: "We don't know, but we know we paid him."

Oh yeah, that'll stand up in court. ::rolls eyes::

You are thinking of his OLAP paper, which Arbor software commissioned.
That paper was supposedly written by someone else on his staff and Dr.
Codd put his name on it. That "cut & paste" of mine was taken from
Chris Date's description of Codd's final rules for Version 1.0 of the
RM.

The NULL for "attribute exists, value unknown" and "attribute missing,
so value is impossible" did not come along until RM Version 2.0.

In his book DATABASE IN DEPTH, Date lists:

RM1: The 1970 CACM paper
RM2: 1981 Turing Award Paper
RM3: Codd's 12 rules in 1985 which locked down Version 1.0
RM4: The Version 2.0 book in 1990

Date then asserts that his Third Manifesto is The Only One and True RM


Thank you for your logical argument and documentation. Oh wait; there
was only an ad hominem attack.

Judge: "Really? How much did you pay the plaintiff?"
Defendant: "We don't know, but we know we paid him." <<

Knowing existence without particulars is a common situation. To carry
on with your courtroom example:

Judge: "How do you know this man was murdered?"
Detective: "People do not shoot themselves 10 times in the back of the
head and dismember their own corpse."
Judge: "Really? Who murdered him?"
Detective: "We do not know yet."
Bob: "If you don't know who did it, then this cannot be a murder!
You must have absolute knowledge!"

Yu might want to look at the problem of missing data in statistics and
Data Theory. Years ago SPARC lists well over a dozen kinds of missing
data in data and their computerized representations. Then along came
fuzzy math and logic (the CSI guy who can tell you that the prep was
left handed and about 5'10" tall, but still not give you his name),
various multi-valued logics and a host of other things. SQL and its
NULLs are very vanilla.

"-CELKO-" <jcelko212 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote


He doesn't say quite that. He writes in Databases, Types, and the
Relational Model (TTM), p. 3, "...the model as we describe it departs in no
essential respects from Codd's original version as documented in [three
papers from 1969, 1970 and 1972]".

The TTM is therefore only a declaration of his views about which of Codd's
publications are to be preferred, with his analysis.

Roy

Roy Hann wrote:

See what I mean? Joe wouldn't know it if it bit him on the ass.

It is too bad that Date decided to freeze his mindset on those early,
"work-in-process" papers. Dr. Codd was a mathematician -- his first
pwork was on cellular automata -- and he could see the problems that
needed to be addressed with RM ver 1.0 and then in ver 2.0. Date
could not make the jump to even ver 1.0 and got left behind.

If I can find it there is a wonderful quote from Aristotle about
settling on distinct classes and two-valued logic as a convention altho
the real world does not have such clear distinctions and absolute
knowledge.

"-CELKO-" <jcelko212 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote:

Mr. Celko, has someone been pissing in your cornflakes?

It could just as easily be reversed as that later people sway in
the wind. That does not sound any more convincing than your swipe. I
give it as an example and do not claim that it is so. What is your
excuse?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

Actually, it is a fine example of Joe's typical modis operandi. He made
a career out of invoking Date's name in the trade rags--generally by
putting absolutely absurd words in Date's mouth. For some reason, Date
seems compelled to reply to such nonsense. Date's compulsive replies
elevated Joe's public image far above the image one might expect of an
ignorant fool like Joe.

Luckily, Date has the sense to stay far away from usenet.

Bob Badour <bbadour (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:




Just like yourself?



Paul...


--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 10.2.0.1 (Express Edition)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.