Re: 1 NF

From: Stefan Nobis <snobis_at_gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:40:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87tzx4exo6.fsf_at_snobis.de>

Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ocis.net> writes:

> "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredono_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>>1NF is irrelevant because any relation is in 1NF by definition.

> It is relevant for precisely that reason. It sets a > precondition.

No. The term "relation" is defined without any mentioning of 1NF. So 1NF is not a precondition.

-- 
Stefan.

Received on Fri Mar 02 2007 - 11:40:09 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: JOG: "Re: 1 NF"
Previous message: Cimode: "Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies: Notation"
Maybe in reply to: Sampo Syreeni: "Re: 1 NF"
Next in thread: JOG: "Re: 1 NF"
Reply: JOG: "Re: 1 NF"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message