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>
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