Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:37:25 -0400
Message-ID: <pYqdnS3aq8Ic3-fcRVn-uQ_at_comcast.com>
"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:clc1jp$ebe$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "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."
Does it say "if and only if"?
If it does, then it's clear that, by that definition, not all relations
need be in 1NF.
>
> So, I think we can get passed the flawed statement that a relation is
> necessarily in first normal form.
I'm not a mathematician, but it's crystal clear to me that not all relations
are in first normal form
There is no useful purpose to be served by having one definition for
"relation" in the discipline of mathematics, and having a different and
inconsistent definition of "relation" in the discipline of IT.
My real question to you is this:
(called "normal form" in the 1970 paper).
If you have an objection to 1NF, as originally defined, and if Date
altered the definition of 1NF, then
do you still have the same objection to the Date definition of 1NF? Or do
you have a different objection?
And I am waiting, patiently, for you to present your conclusion as to the connection between data model and team productivity. Received on Sat Oct 23 2004 - 13:37:25 CEST