1NF
Date: 18 Jan 2007 04:52:44 -0800
Message-ID: <1169124763.911018.114100_at_v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
Scanning through the archives to see what people had said about continous time I found this from way back in July 2004:
Marshall Spight wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
>> But note that the exact definition of 1NF is not as well-understood as one
>> might suppose. Chris Date, for example, apparently has decided to
>> rivialize the notion.
>
> Is there any reason it shouldn't be trivialized? 1NF doesn't seem to do
> anything but get in the way of things like relation-valued or
> list-valued attributes.
I was wondering if 2 years on you still accord to this Marshall?
Now I realise from posts since that understanding of the 'atomic values' nature of 1NF has evolved to see that it can incorporate any type of value, so I was more enquiring as to the "doesn't seem to do anything" part. I am currently having a look at the effect that it has on proposition manipulation and was wondering as to your current opinions on 1NF, as I too have struggled to 'grok' a theoretical foundation for it (unlike later forms which are obviously grounded in functional dependencies). Ta in advance, Jim. Received on Thu Jan 18 2007 - 13:52:44 CET