Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:09:26 -0400
Message-ID: <A-KdnT9Y15YireTcRVn-uw_at_comcast.com>


"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message news:qrain01kuibber5ael0lan26nqrjgsvd9d_at_4ax.com...
> alfredo_at_ncs.es (Alfredo Novoa) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >1NF is superfluous, a relation is always in 1NF
>
> I would not say that 1NF is superfluous, but rather that it is
> part of the definition of "relation".

Here's a definition of 1NF pulled from the web:

Formal Definition:
A relation is in first normal form (1NF) if and only if all underlying simple domains contain atomic values only.

Is this definition of 1NF correct or incorrect? And is the criterion true for all relations, or not?

ref: http://nunic.nu.edu/~ckettemb/DBNorm.html Received on Fri Oct 22 2004 - 18:09:26 CEST

Original text of this message