Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads

David Cressey wrote:
> "Tom Ivar Helbekkmo" <tih+nr_at_eunetnorge.no> wrote in message
> news:86ekfskhw2.fsf_at_athene.hamartun.priv.no...
> > "Alan" <not.me_at_rcn.com> writes:
>
> > Of course, I fully agree with you that the moment we expand our
> > relational model with operators that peek into attribute values,
> > treating them as composite objects equivalent to rows, or even
tables,
> > we can no longer claim that tables containing such attributes
satisfy
> > the classic definition of 1NF. At this point, new definitions of
the
> > normal forms are needed, that take the new features into
> > consideration.
> >
> > It seems intuitively obvious to me, though, that this can be done
> > without breaking the underlying relational theory.
>
> In the original Russel's paradox, the barber shaves every man in
town,
> except those who shave themselves.
>
> I understand you to be saying that an atomic value can be a relvar,
provided
> that the relational engine is unaware that this is the case. Or am I
> misconstruing your remarks?
Received on Mon Feb 07 2005 - 14:35:21 CET