Re: atomic

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:46:10 -0300
Message-ID: <4728db84$0$14867$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>

paul c wrote:

> 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.

Actually, the structure is illusory and representation-dependent. Domains have operations that appear to reveal internal structure even when that internal structure may not physically exist. Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 14:46:10 CDT