Re: atomic
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:02:17 GMT
Message-ID: <Jq3Wi.164960$1y4.6863_at_pd7urf2no>
>
> Can that be formalised? I agree with Bob that in general we have a
> set of operators and they can allow us to see internal structure.
> What does it mean for a value to be *treated* as atomic?
>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:02:17 GMT
Message-ID: <Jq3Wi.164960$1y4.6863_at_pd7urf2no>
David BL wrote:
> On Oct 31, 4:31 pm, "Roy Hann" <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat>
...
>> >> 1NF does not *require* that values be atomic. It asserts that values will >> be *treated as* atomic. Big difference. Essential difference. >> >> Roy
>
> Can that be formalised? I agree with Bob that in general we have a
> set of operators and they can allow us to see internal structure.
> What does it mean for a value to be *treated* as atomic?
>
I think it means that relational algebra operators are not allowed to decompose it. Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 19:02:17 CET