Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:40:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CbydnaMpAdDJq_vcRVn-gQ_at_comcast.com>


"Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:9jabm09bsqod3bpj015hmft3t0mopt4fno_at_4ax.com...

> So now the string is atomic depending on what you do with it.

An integer is atomic or not depending on what you do with it.
>
> It sounds a little strange to me.

Hell, in physics, an atom is atomic or not depending on what you do with it.

>
>
> I recomend you and Laconic2 to read Date's writings in order to
> understand why "atomic" is not a precise term.

There's no need for Kenneth or me to go off to Date's writings.

If you will recall, Dawn started a discussion in here a few months ago with the (somewhat wry) title of "Date's first great blunder." In that article, the difference between Date's formulation of 1NF and Codd's formulation of 1NF was outlined pretty clearly. Equally clear, at least to me, was that Dawn's objection to 1NF was based on the requirement that column values be atomic, and not based on the difference between a bag and a set. The details of that discussion covered an awful lot of the ground you are sending me off to Date to "learn".

I don't know if Kenneth was reading the forum at that time. If not, Ken, the subject was pretty much beaten to death at that time. There was a lot of "people hearing without listening" going on. Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 08:40:00 CEST

Original text of this message