<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-AU" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><div><div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:itapps-bounces@edulists.com.au" target="_blank">itapps-bounces@edulists.com.au</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:itapps-bounces@edulists.com.au" target="_blank">itapps-bounces@edulists.com.au</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Vear, Gary D</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-AU" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div><div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><span style="color:black;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Will students be penalised if they do the sensible thing and normalise this data to 2NF by creating
separate tables?</span><br></span></p></div></div><div>
<p><span style="color:black;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">I'd appreciate feedback/corrections from others on this question, since it has me somewhat confused.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I fear that a student who (logically and properly) translated the table to 2NF <b>would</b> be penalised since the question asked for knowledge of <b>1NF</b>.</div><div>Any 1NF solution (with a single, ugly table) would be technically correct (no repeating fields, one datum per field) but completely useless as a table.</div><div><br></div><div>That's what chews my Chihuahuas. </div><div><br></div><div>Normalising to 1NF is a completely artificial exercise. Normalisation is a destination, and the 1,2,3 steps are purely <b>logical</b> - not practical - stages, simply to aid theoretical elucidation. </div><div><br></div><div>In practice, you <b>never</b> start with 1NF, proceed to 2 and fix things up with 3.</div><div><br></div><div>For a start, 2NF problems are never even going to happen if you start every new table with a key field. </div><div>Bang. </div><div>Problem solved. </div><div>No multiple-field keys, so no 2NF issues. </div><div><br></div><div>If you <b>start</b> a database design with an understanding of 2NF you never need to experience 2NF problems. </div><div>I know <b>theoretically</b> that falling into an open sewer is not good. I don't need to be <b>pushed </b>into the cesspit to see if I know how to get out.</div><div>I side-step it before I get to it.</div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, you don't start a database by throwing fields together carelessly and then sorting problems out later, step by step.</div><div><br></div><div>Slave: Here, mighty Pharaoh. We have finished your million-ton tomb.</div><div>Pharaoh: O goody. Does it have a burial chamber in it?</div><div>Slave: O dear. Give us twenty years. We'll fix it. Then you can ask if the pointy end is at the top or not.</div><div><br></div><div>I know that the examiners want to test whether students understand the logic behind attaining 1NF. </div><div>That's great. I love them for it.</div><div>Capable students could easily and quickly have shown their understanding of 1NF in this exam if they'd been given a a table with <b>one</b> repeating field.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But to add the <b>second</b> repeating field? That was just ugly and unnecessary.</div><div><br></div><div>Student: "Of course I know 1NF. I split the repeating values into new records... but what the hell do I do with the second repeating field? I can't meaningfully fix that with a single table. I'd need to get to 2NF to do that. I can't do anything sensible with a single table. What am I supposed to do? OK. I'll go to 2NF and lose all my marks..."</div><div><br>The question mistakenly assumed that having 2 repeating fields would be twice as hard as having 1 repeating field. </div><div><br>Wrong. The level of difficulty was exponential, not additive </div><div><br></div><div>I feel better now.</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Mark Kelly</div><div>mark AT vceit DOT com</div><div><a href="http://vceit.com" target="_blank">http://vceit.com</a></div><div><br></div><div><i>I love the sound of people's voices after they stop talking.</i></div><div><br></div><div><div>I, Mark Kelly, am entirely responsible for the offensive verbiage I spew forth.</div><div>Have I offended anyone with this post? I would not be surprised.</div><div>If offended, please whinge to me at the email address above. </div><div>Please leave poor Kevork alone. It is not his fault.</div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>