![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this a higher normal form truly? The example simply shows a combination of two attributes in one field, something that wouldn't even pass 1NF if you simply rewrote it as an array stored in a field, which it basically is. Gigs ( talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the example given is flawed. You are both converting to DKNF and changing the data as well. A better example would be that you get two tables: one for millionaires and one for billionaires. That satisfies the DKNF requirement since the keys are unchanged and the domains are now constrained in the tables. Remember: the purpose of DKNF is to split generalized constraints into (testable) Domain constraints and Key constraints. I will add this reason to the page. If no comment arrives in a week or so, I'll change the example to clear it up. RonaldKunenborg ( talk) 10:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1 The entire article is an insult to knowledge and reason. "DKNF" is the result of persons untrained and inexperienced with the theory and practice (the two are inseparable) of Normalisation, purporting to "normalise" a database.
2 The Normal Forms are progressive: 3NF contains 2NF, 2NF contains 1NF; therefore since "DKNF" is neither a formal progression of 4NF or 5NF (which are currently defined, understood and implemented), its claim to being the "highest" Normal Form is entirely false.
3 Since the process identified does not have 1NF, it is not a Normal Form of an kind; from the description, it is merely a status of a non-standard organisation of data in a database storage facility, with no Integrity save for the "domain constraint" and "key constraint".
4 The proposition that "The Boyce-Codd normal form, Third normal form, Fourth normal form and Fifth normal form are special cases of the domain/key normal form" is preposterous for several reasons:
5 The examples (both the initial and the suggested "compliant" examples) are so poor and confusing the provide neither an example of the undefined proces of normalising to "DKNF", nor the specific definitive difference between the "non-compliant" and "compliant" versions. That is understandable, since the "dknf" is undefined.
6 The example given does not comply with 1NF; this fact further confirms my assertions re [2], [3] and [4]. It is not a "normal" "form" of any kind.
7 The statement "DKNF is frequently difficult to achieve in practice" has no basis. In fact, given the non-specific and non-deterministic lay descriptions given here, and the entire absence of relation to established technical terms (those supplied being false, as identified above), any uneducated person can achieve it; anyone can call any "organisation" of data DKNY. Further, whether it is achieved or not can be confirmed or denied by anyone. It is indeterminate concept.
The rest of the article is marketing hype, and not worthy of specific attention.
At best, "DKNF" is as identified in [1.a]. In fact, it is discussed in educated circles as Don't Know Normal Form.
If Wiki is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, we must keep such abject nonsense out of it. DerekAsirvadem ( talk) 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
To the above person; instead of whinging in your high-pitched, academic whine - why did you not improve the article? You have put so much effort into criticising it point by point and none into actually sharing knowledge on the page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.123.251 ( talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Domain-key normal form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
None of the external links even mention DKNF. They only go up to 3NF or BCNF AntPraxis ( talk) 11:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The current example claims that "There is a constraint linking Wealthy Person Type ["Type" below] to Net Worth in Dollars ["NetWorth" below], even though we cannot deduce one from the other."
This is clearly nonsense: as the next sentence explains, "The constraint dictates that a Millionaire will have a net worth of 1,000,000 to 999,999,999 inclusive, whilst a Billionaire will have a net worth of 1,000,000,000 or higher." There is therefore a functional dependency NetWorth -> Type. This means the example table isn't even in 3NF, which could be fixed by splitting into Person-NetWorth and NetWorth-Type relations. DKNF adds no further insights here. Charnel Mouse ( talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this a higher normal form truly? The example simply shows a combination of two attributes in one field, something that wouldn't even pass 1NF if you simply rewrote it as an array stored in a field, which it basically is. Gigs ( talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the example given is flawed. You are both converting to DKNF and changing the data as well. A better example would be that you get two tables: one for millionaires and one for billionaires. That satisfies the DKNF requirement since the keys are unchanged and the domains are now constrained in the tables. Remember: the purpose of DKNF is to split generalized constraints into (testable) Domain constraints and Key constraints. I will add this reason to the page. If no comment arrives in a week or so, I'll change the example to clear it up. RonaldKunenborg ( talk) 10:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1 The entire article is an insult to knowledge and reason. "DKNF" is the result of persons untrained and inexperienced with the theory and practice (the two are inseparable) of Normalisation, purporting to "normalise" a database.
2 The Normal Forms are progressive: 3NF contains 2NF, 2NF contains 1NF; therefore since "DKNF" is neither a formal progression of 4NF or 5NF (which are currently defined, understood and implemented), its claim to being the "highest" Normal Form is entirely false.
3 Since the process identified does not have 1NF, it is not a Normal Form of an kind; from the description, it is merely a status of a non-standard organisation of data in a database storage facility, with no Integrity save for the "domain constraint" and "key constraint".
4 The proposition that "The Boyce-Codd normal form, Third normal form, Fourth normal form and Fifth normal form are special cases of the domain/key normal form" is preposterous for several reasons:
5 The examples (both the initial and the suggested "compliant" examples) are so poor and confusing the provide neither an example of the undefined proces of normalising to "DKNF", nor the specific definitive difference between the "non-compliant" and "compliant" versions. That is understandable, since the "dknf" is undefined.
6 The example given does not comply with 1NF; this fact further confirms my assertions re [2], [3] and [4]. It is not a "normal" "form" of any kind.
7 The statement "DKNF is frequently difficult to achieve in practice" has no basis. In fact, given the non-specific and non-deterministic lay descriptions given here, and the entire absence of relation to established technical terms (those supplied being false, as identified above), any uneducated person can achieve it; anyone can call any "organisation" of data DKNY. Further, whether it is achieved or not can be confirmed or denied by anyone. It is indeterminate concept.
The rest of the article is marketing hype, and not worthy of specific attention.
At best, "DKNF" is as identified in [1.a]. In fact, it is discussed in educated circles as Don't Know Normal Form.
If Wiki is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, we must keep such abject nonsense out of it. DerekAsirvadem ( talk) 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
To the above person; instead of whinging in your high-pitched, academic whine - why did you not improve the article? You have put so much effort into criticising it point by point and none into actually sharing knowledge on the page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.123.251 ( talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Domain-key normal form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
None of the external links even mention DKNF. They only go up to 3NF or BCNF AntPraxis ( talk) 11:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The current example claims that "There is a constraint linking Wealthy Person Type ["Type" below] to Net Worth in Dollars ["NetWorth" below], even though we cannot deduce one from the other."
This is clearly nonsense: as the next sentence explains, "The constraint dictates that a Millionaire will have a net worth of 1,000,000 to 999,999,999 inclusive, whilst a Billionaire will have a net worth of 1,000,000,000 or higher." There is therefore a functional dependency NetWorth -> Type. This means the example table isn't even in 3NF, which could be fixed by splitting into Person-NetWorth and NetWorth-Type relations. DKNF adds no further insights here. Charnel Mouse ( talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)