On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:30:10 -0700, John Jacob wrote:
>> [...] But note that the exact definition of 1NF is not as
>> well-understood as one might suppose. Chris Date, for example,
>> apparently has decided to trivialize the notion.
>
> [...] All relations are therefore in 1NF by
> definition with no restriction on the types of values that can be
> contained in the tuples of the relation.
It's not so much the "allowing any type" pary that they (and I) have
problems with but that you no longer consider them as atomic.
Received on Sun Jul 18 2004 - 05:52:27 CDT
