Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:32:43 GMT
Message-ID: <fLwfd.319125$D%.108338_at_attbi_s51>
So, 1NF tells us:
- the potentialities have all occured (a physicists view),
- the form is completed and signed (a bureaucrats view),
- the check has been deposited (the businessmans view), or
- whatever... (the surfers or technologists view).
:-)
Bill
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:gkxed.303674$D%.250206_at_attbi_s51...
> "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_M-dnVCpa_yP5efcRVn-jA_at_comcast.com...
> >
> > I claim that it's not useful to have one definition for "relation" for
> > mathematics and an incompatible one for IT. On this point I agree with
> > Dawn.
>
> I agree also.
>
>
> > And it's clear to me that the mathematical definition of "relation"
> > does not force the values in the tuples to be atomic. And it's clear to
me
> > that the definition I always learned for 1NF does force the values in
the
> > tuples to be atomic.
>
> Yeah, that's true.
>
>
> > So, if someone wants to adjust the definition of 1NF so that it no
longer
> > requires atomic values, I would prefer that they invent a new term,
like
> > "Date-Darwen Normal form". There is precedent for this. "Boyce-Codd
Normal
> > Form" was sandwiched between 3NF and 4NF, rather than renumbering the
> > normal forms.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
> > If someone wants to change the definition of "Relation", I would prefer
> > that they invent a new term, like "normal relation".
> > Then they can say that a "normal relation is in 1NF (and may also be in
> > other normal forms)".
> >
> > If we did this, we could talk about "relations" as such, and talk
about
> > "normal relations" when we need to.
>
> It seems like the term "NFNF" is fairly established as the term for
> relations that allow attributes to be relations or lists; that works for
> me. There's also this term "nested relations" but it seems to mean
> something very specific that I haven't quite nailed down yet.
>
>
> Marshall
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 20:32:43 CEST