Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Proposal: 6NF

Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:35:33 GMT
Message-ID: <95iTg.67734$1T2.6591_at_pd7urf2no> 






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.

> 

> p




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.



p
Received on Sat Sep 30 2006 - 01:35:33 CEST












Original text of this message