Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:29:02 -0500
Message-ID: <clc1jp$ebe$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:4178ed91.92089859_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:20:36 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
> wrote:
<snip>
> That's wrong. It should be: A relation is in First Normal Form.
>
>
> 1NF is superfluous.

I found a paper that I bought from Date last year specfically on 1st normal form. He starts with a quote from Codd

"A relation is in first normal form if ...none of its domains has elements that are themselves sets. An unnormalized relation is one that is not in first normal form."

So, I think we can get passed the flawed statement that a relation is necessarily in first normal form. A normalized relation is in 1NF, but a relation, by its definition need not be. I'll read further to get what I think is Date's most recent def of 1NF. I bought this paper for $10 IIRC, so I don't think I ought to quote large portions of it as I suspect you can still buy it from the dbdebunk web site. --dawn Received on Sat Oct 23 2004 - 00:29:02 CEST

Original text of this message