Re: atomic

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:24:32 -0300
Message-ID: <47287403$0$14876$>

paul c wrote:

> 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.

I agree. And because the value has an associated data type, the system defines operations on it. Some of those operations may seem to reveal an internal structure. Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 13:24:32 CET

Original text of this message