Re: atomic
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:28:35 GMT
Message-ID: <DDSVi.162416$1y4.144291_at_pd7urf2no>
>> 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.
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:28:35 GMT
Message-ID: <DDSVi.162416$1y4.144291_at_pd7urf2no>
Bob Badour wrote:
> 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.
I don't know about that, when I'm thinking of a value in a db, say "123", it seems enough to think of the whole thing as a symbol. Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 04:28:35 CET