Re: sql views for denomalizing

Marshall Spight wrote:
> ...
>
> Some phrasings of 1NF say this, and some just say "no repeated groups."
> I've pretty much reached the conclusion that 1NF doesn't really mean
> anything and isn't grounded in any particular theory. With, say,
> 2NF, 3NF, and BCNF, you can point to the specific redundancy, and
> the specific update anomalies. Can anyone do that with 1NF? It just
> doesn't seem to fit with the other normal forms.
>
> ...

i think that's right, just now it doesn't mean anything. it seems that the term "domain" in Codd's 1970 paper was a very loaded one and, no offence, it might be hard for the people who weren't around then, including textbook authors, who parrot some of the slogans to see it in the context of the times.

still, i think it's great that the '1NF' label can stand as a place-holder for a better concept in the future. in homage to Darwen, let me ask what, if anything, would '0NF' be or is that what OO stands for?

pc Received on Sat Jul 30 2005 - 22:28:26 CEST