Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:32:38 +0200
In article <q_Cye.138126$Kn.7314565_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
> > Yet you did say "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."
> Good point. I'm making the silent assumption here that if you allow
> nested relations, then you probably also have the nest/unnest relations
> as are usually found in the nested relational algebra.
> If you don't have
> those then you are arguably treating it more as an atomic value than a
> set value.
So the presence of nest/unnest is the problem? For the sake of the argument, let us say that a relation with relation-valued attributes is in 1NF iff there are no nest/unnest operators.
-- JonReceived on Wed Jul 06 2005 - 10:32:38 CEST