Re: Normalisation
From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:02:07 GMT
Message-ID: <jfwxe.135559$Sl.7259257_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
>
> In theory, set-valued fields definitely do not violate 1NF.
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:02:07 GMT
Message-ID: <jfwxe.135559$Sl.7259257_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <Vqgxe.134972$Ql.7257205_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
> jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be says...
>
>>Like I said, as a special value. Another option is to treat the field as >>a set-valued field (since it apparently can contain 0 or 1 values) which >>means that you are not in 1NF and should first normalize such that you are.
>
> In theory, set-valued fields definitely do not violate 1NF.
That's only true if you accept Chris Date's redefinition of the "first normal form", and that is by no means widely accepted as *the* definition in academia and industry, and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future.
- Jan Hidders