Re: Proposal: 6NF
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:13:44 GMT
Message-ID: <YEiTg.573$%6.19462_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I guess it would have been a little more accurate to say there are some
> people who discredit nulls who also aren't sure if 1NF really means
> anything at all. I'm sort of in that camp, although I sometimes wonder
> if there really is a 1NF, could it be that part of its definition be
> that no rva could constitute, by itself, a key. That is part of my
> interpretation of the information principle, but I'm sure some other
> people would find my interpretation objectionable.
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:13:44 GMT
Message-ID: <YEiTg.573$%6.19462_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
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 Sat Sep 30 2006 - 02:13:44 CEST