Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: Jon Heggland <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:47:03 +0200
Message-ID: <e3a8o6$hg8$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>

dawn wrote:
> Jon Heggland wrote:

>> So now user-defined datatypes violate 1NF as well?

>
> Only if they would be in the category of repeating groups or "nonsimple
> domains" such as list-valued attributes.

Then please say so. You're confusing the issue even more than usual with such imprecise statements. Whether a type is user-defined or not is supremely irrelevant.

(BTW, what "group" is "repeated" in a list of (say) integers?)

-- 
Jon

Received on Wed May 03 2006 - 07:47:03 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Bob Badour: "Re: Design question: one big field or slave table"
Previous message: Matthieu: "Design question: one big field or slave table"
In reply to: dawn: "Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?"
Next in thread: Bob Badour: "Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?"
Reply: Bob Badour: "Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?"
Reply: dawn: "Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US