Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: atomic

Re: atomic

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:05:59 -0300
Message-ID: <4727ef1e$0$14869$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>


paul c wrote:

> I know that Codd wrote his first "big" db paper in 1969. At that time I
> believe the understanding of physical atoms was simpler than it is
> today but the word "atomic" in most people's minds inherited the physics
> meaning.
>
> I wonder if 1NF would seem clearer if it were expressed in terms of
> "simplest" domains. I suppose there would still be people who would say
> "but if I look at this way, it's not so simple", eg., when they are
> talking about some compound key (versus composite key). But the rest of
> us might not get drawn into the confusions they offer.

Even character strings have internal structure. Heck, one can even think of integers as arrays of binary digits. Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 22:05:59 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US