Re: Dawn doesn't like 1NF

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:ckup5m$5if$1_at_news.netins.net...
>
> The only way that
> atomicity is a term that is understandable is if we are talking about
> atomicity with repect to the database functions (a type or value that has no
> database functions that break it down further being atomic) and if those
> functions are not extensible.

Right. Atomicity is somethin that exists with respect to a set of functions, not to a set of data.

> However, when you look at how folks are
> taught 1NF even today, it gets back to either the term "atomic" or "scalar
> values" or some such.

Maybe that's a sign.

> While the definitions of "relation" is very clear (at least from the
> original definitions from mathematics), I would like to see a clear
> definition of 1NF that has some basis in anything -- either mathematics or
> experience -- related to databases. I didn't even find one in Date's most
> recent edition IIRC (but I'll look again). Considering that 2NF & 3NF
> (which make a lot of sense to me) require that data first be in 1NF, I'd
> like to have some better rationale on 1NF. --dawn

But if we suspect that 1NF was bunk to begin with, perhaps we can also amend the definitions of 2NF, etc. not to refer to the definition of 1NF. They don't particularly seem to need it [1NF] except perhaps to support some esthetically pleasing induction on the defnitions of the normal forms.

Marshall Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 01:07:01 CEST