paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'll try to phrase an answer that is as terse as that question.
Let me try: "I dunno. It sounded good when I said it fast." ?
Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 21:30:22 CDT
