atomic
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:45:23 GMT
Message-ID: <T6RVi.162603$th2.137089_at_pd7urf3no>
I know that Codd wrote his first "big" db paper in 1969. At that time I believe the understanding of physical atoms was simpler than it is today but the word "atomic" in most people's minds inherited the physics meaning.
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:45:23 GMT
Message-ID: <T6RVi.162603$th2.137089_at_pd7urf3no>
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.
Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 02:45:23 CET