Re: normalization review

one could make a number ( a large number) of assumptions about any question

and get far far away from the question simply stated.

Maybe you didn't know the answer and tried to cloud the issue!

I am finished with this question!

So assume on until you get tired!

Larry Coon wrote:
>
>> What normal form is violated here?
>
>Since you've provided an imprecise description without
>elaborating the FDs, I don't think it's possible to
>answer.
>
>You might be implying an FD from telephone number to
>telephone location, but I certainly wouldn't take it
>as a given. For example:
>
>1. A cell phone can be at any location.
>
>2. A land line might be given up by one customer, and
> later reassigned to a new customer.
>
>> What could fix the problem?
>
>A more precise description of the problem. It's
>certainly not at the point where a database developer
>could begin to develop a schema -- so why then would
>you think it's at a point where one could normalize it?
>
>> A telephone call is uniquely identified by telephone number and time of call.
>> These candidate keys compose the composite primary key. There is another
>> attribute/column “telephone location”.
>>
>> telephone number | time of call | telephone location(precise)
>
>
>Larry Coon
>University of California

-- 
Message posted via DBMonster.com
http://www.dbmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/db-theory/200708/1