Re: 1 NF

paul c wrote:
> ...
> I recognize that a type that is a set of sets for values should be
> treated as being different from a type is a set of values, otherwise we
> must implement exceptions that could be tricky. So I would like to take
> display issues out of the picture and suggest that we can express, if
> not tabularize, everything we want about a particular type if the most
> basic normal form of a relation is a singleton set, ie., a set of one
> individual of that type.
> ...

oops, should have said "if the most basic normal form of a relation has domains whose values are singleton sets" or somesuch.

p Received on Sat Mar 03 2007 - 21:20:08 CET