Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:07:01 GMT
Message-ID: <oWCcd.276338$3l3.8376_at_attbi_s03>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:ckup5m$5if$1_at_news.netins.net...
>
> The only way that
> atomicity is a term that is understandable is if we are talking about
> atomicity with repect to the database functions (a type or value that has no
> database functions that break it down further being atomic) and if those
> functions are not extensible.
Right. Atomicity is somethin that exists with respect to a set of functions, not to a set of data.
> However, when you look at how folks are
> taught 1NF even today, it gets back to either the term "atomic" or "scalar
> values" or some such.
Maybe that's a sign.
> While the definitions of "relation" is very clear (at least from the
> original definitions from mathematics), I would like to see a clear
> definition of 1NF that has some basis in anything -- either mathematics or
> experience -- related to databases. I didn't even find one in Date's most
> recent edition IIRC (but I'll look again). Considering that 2NF & 3NF
> (which make a lot of sense to me) require that data first be in 1NF, I'd
> like to have some better rationale on 1NF. --dawn
Marshall Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 01:07:01 CEST