Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

In message <c8be2c$sns$2_at_news.netins.net>, Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> writes
>"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:m24e2vGDAMqAFwsl_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <40a6bd9d$0$65124$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>, mAsterdam
>> <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> writes
>> >Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
><snip>
>> And yet, I keep on saying Pick
>> data should be normalised! So I'm actually very pro relational theory
>> (just leave relational databases out of it! :-)
>
>This wasn't the crux of your post, Wol, but just a minor point that
>relational theorist take all of the functional dependency normal forms and
>state at the front of each that the data must FIRST be in FIRST NORMAL FORM
>and some would state that the definition of normalization requires that the
>data be in 1NF. So, while I accept normal forms that are based on
>functional dependeny logic, I'm fine with keeping a list of valid e-mail
>addresses together during this process. I don't want to put words in your
>mouth, but when you are pro normalization, are you including 1NF in
>hat? --dawn
>
As a tool of analysis, yes. For storing the data, no.

Why first normal? If data is normalised, there is no redundancy. Like so many things relational, First Normal Form seems to be case of carrying things to unnecessary and not-required extremes.

It's incredibly easy to transform other normal forms to first normal. It's not easy to go the other way (assuming you wish to reconstruct a real-world object, that is). So NFNF is functionally equivalent to FNF, but the reverse is not true.

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999