March 3, 2017 at 9:51 am
amy26 - Friday, March 3, 2017 8:41 AMI mean its a business rule that they want the field to be the way it is... so it shouldn't matter if it violates the normalization rule cause it is what they want it to be for the way they designed it long long long ago.
OK, I can accept that. But that is far different than your original claim that the table does in fact follow 1NF even if you changed a text description to include a status and a date. I'd be extremely leery of lying to another employee, and I would be so even in govt. Do you have internal rule that you do follow 1NF? If so, you'll simply need to explain that the current Frankenstein table was grandfathered in and so doesn't have to follow the rules.
SQL DBA,SQL Server MVP(07, 08, 09) "It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear." "Norm", on "Cheers". Also from "Cheers", from "Carla": "You need to know 3 things about Tortelli men: Tortelli men draw women like flies; Tortelli men treat women like flies; Tortelli men's brains are in their flies".
March 3, 2017 at 10:13 am
amy26 - Friday, March 3, 2017 7:34 AMThis is all I put in my "draft" so far, trying to be generic yet rebuting:Thank you for reaching out and please allow me to address your concerns.
Please be assured that our item definition data does not contain any repeating attribute groups
within our tables and that each row is unique per first normal form guidelines.
The description field is a freeform text field and is a descriptor ofthe unique item attribute.
Instead of sending a reply like this, just accept that it's an issue that will be solved eventually. Then do like Microsoft and keep the issue open during many years and then close them without an explanation.
Viewing 2 posts - 16 through 16 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply