Re: Views for denomalizing

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:03:59 +0100
Message-ID: <h5da011hvcgq8slp3b9k987r7umdq7oouh@4ax.com>

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:53:54 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:

> PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE IT A ONE OR TWO-WORD
>NAME AND I'LL USE IT!
What about "the old interpretation of 1NF"?

It is a bit long, but I can't find anything better.

>>>we as a profession will need to attend to those who already graduated to
>>>eliminate the bias against lists within attributes, at least when it comes
>>>to views of the data, if not base relations.
>>
>> Lists within attributes break the Information Principle, the most
>> fundamental principle of the Relational Model.
>
>This is terminology, I think

This is.

> -- if my "list" (in English) is modeled as a
>relation, then it may be the type of an attribute, right?

Indeed, if your list is "encapsulated" in a value we still have a relation.

Regards Received on Sat Feb 05 2005 - 15:03:59 CST