Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:13:44 GMT
Message-ID: <YEiTg.573$%6.19462@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

paul c wrote:

> paul c wrote:
>

>> Karen Hill wrote:
>>
>>> J M Davitt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karen Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 6NF would be a database that uses no Nulls.
>>>>
>>>> Um, "no nulls" is necessary for 1NF.  And I
>>>> believe someone already has dibs on "6NF."
>>>>
>>>
>>> How so?  Plenty of people have nulls in 3NF.  How is no nulls necessary
>>> for 1NF?
>>>
>>
>> I think JM is saying nulls aren't possible in 1NF, ergo not either in 
>> 3NF.  Just because somebody thinks they have 3NF with nulls, doesn't 
>> mean they do, no matter what their SQL product documentation tells them.

>
> I guess it would have been a little more accurate to say there are some
> people who discredit nulls who also aren't sure if 1NF really means
> anything at all. I'm sort of in that camp, although I sometimes wonder
> if there really is a 1NF, could it be that part of its definition be
> that no rva could constitute, by itself, a key. That is part of my
> interpretation of the information principle, but I'm sure some other
> people would find my interpretation objectionable.

Why on earth would anyone want to proscribe the use of RVA's in keys? A value is a value. Period. Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 19:13:44 CDT