Re: 1NF (Marshall)

*bump*

JOG wrote:
> 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 Sat Jan 20 2007 - 15:59:40 CET