Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:0qI9d.331735$mD.311492_at_attbi_s02...
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CbydnaMpAdDJq_vcRVn-gQ_at_comcast.com...
> >
> > 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".
>
> Found it.

Thanks for finding it. After rereading the first 10 posts of that discussion, I'm starting to think that I made a mistake, and that it was some other thread where the subject of 1NF and atomicity was dealt with. Ah, memory. Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 22:11:11 CDT