Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!grad2.cis.upenn.edu!aaron
From: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: ER versus dependency normalization methods.
Message-ID: <33684@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 90 13:55:20 GMT
References: <33445@netnews.upenn.edu> <2095@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> <1990Nov29.032532.23631@informix.com>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: aaron@grad1.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 16

In article <1990Nov29.032532.23631@informix.com> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>
> I have
>a lot of respect for Codd, DeMarco et al., but in a real project, under
>a real budget, a real computer, and real deadlines, you can't always follow 
>them to the letter. 
>Randall Rhea                                          Informix Software, Inc. 

Issues of respect aside, how does one `follow' them at all?
I still don't see how one extracts functional dependencies
from the customer without getting the customer to draw something
like an ER diagram first.  And once the ER-diagram is drawn,
why bother with the notion of dependency based normalization
at all?  I'm purposely adopting a strong position in the hopes
of extracting a good example from someone (and maybe learning
something).		-aaron.