Re: Sixth normal form

On 17 aug, 19:15, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
>
> [... big snip ...]
>
> If the goal is a database schema that can represent exactly the same
> information content, then the cyclical interrelational constraint is
> required; if the goal is a schema that can represent additional information
> without contradicting the closure of the set of FDs and INDs for all
> schemata that are equivalent to the less normalized schema, then the
> cyclical interrelational constraint is not always required, except, of
> course, when moving from 5NF to 6NF.

*sigh* You already said this, and I already explained that under the usual definitions of those terms they are *never* required, including when going from 5NF to 6NF. You replied that you are using other definitons but apart from some informal examples you never gave a good definition nor a good motivation why that should be the definition. I think the onus is on you here to show why you want to depart from rather well-established terminology.

• Jan Hidders