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.
Received on Sat Jul 02 2005 - 08:02:07 CDT
