"Peter Chen (E/R Modeling, 1976) used the term "weak" entity to describe one which could not meaningfully have an independent existence. An example might be an Order which requires a customer (and a Product or set of products). A weak entity need not be a composite, as in your OrderItem example. The central issue here is dependency of one entity [of one] type on another [of another type]. Furthermore, there could be more that one such dependency. In your example, the OrderItem would be dependent on BOTH Order and Item.

It is important to note that this dependency will NOT be enforced by a simple RDBMS unless you also define referential integrity on both parts of the composite key, notwithstanding that some RDBMS's (e.g., SQL Server) couple the definition of the relationship with a referential integrity constraint. In other words, you cannot have a defined relationship without enforcing referential integrity.

This is not always desirable. Consider the task of bulk loading some records which have a relationship with some other entity type(s). The only practical way to do this is to first turn off referential integrity enforcement which means deleting the definition of the relationship entirely. After completing the loading of data, if you reinstate the defined relationship, will the system automatically ensure that referential integrity is not violated? Good question." --Gordon Everest

"In Oracle you can instruct the DBMS to log violating rows into an 'exceptions' table while enabling a constraint (be it, a primary key, unique key, foreign key, or plain check constraint). This fits the bill better, particularly if it's possible to INSERT...SELECT them after corrections." --Toon Koppelaars

"SQL Server will check on re-enabling the constraint that it is not violated by the new state of the database. If it is, it only reports that an error occurred. It has a real time violation catalog to easily map a constraint name to a specific violation and transaction id. In other words, doing bulk batch constraint validation is part of the product." --William Sisson and Racim Boudjakdji

"How to implement“existence dependence” ... between two entities ...is a design decision and is dependent upon the architecture of the implementation technology. [Chen's E/R models] ... were completely technology agnostic and had no “relational” flavor at all. Why? With the rapid emergence and popularity of the NoSQL, NewSQL, Graph Databases, etc. no longer can relational implementation and FK be assumed and we again need to separate the “conceptual data model” from the “logical data model”. Whether this is evolution of de-evolution is a whole other subject (for those of us that remember WHY relational technology emerged in the 1980s--and as a warning to those who would forget their history--IDMS, IMS, etc.)"

The relational model has been so dominant for so long, we have forgotten our roots and the reason that there were originally three layers of data model, not just two. The rise of the post-relational technologies has again required their creation and reminds us of their utility. --David Tryon

• A logical model is implemented in specific hardware and DBMS software, a conceptual model is formalized as a logical model by means of a data model (e.g., the RDM). Using 'implementation' for both induces and reinforces the confusion.
• Emergence, or popularity are not grounds for technology adoption: a superior generality-to-simplicity ratio (G2SR), soundness and flexibility are. 

The query framework, as it exists in modern day MongoDB, supports the following functionality:

• Filtering. The rough equivalent of the WHERE clause in SQL.
• Paging. The rough equivalent of LIMIT and OFFSET in SQL.
• Sorting. The rough equivalent of ORDER BY in SQL.

--John De Goes, MongoDB: The Frankenstein Monster of NoSQL Databases, LinkedIn.com

• First Normal Form (1NF) in Theory and Practice, Part 1
• First Normal Form (1NF) in Theory and Practice, Part 2
• First Normal Form (1NF) in Theory and Practice, Part 3

09/19/23: For the latest on this subject see: FIRST NORMAL FORM - A DEFINITIVE GUIDE

Note: This is a 11/23/17 revision of Part 3 of a three-part series that replaced all of my previous posts on the subject (pages of which redirect here), in order to further tighten integration with the formalization and interpretation [1] of McGoveran's formalization and interpretation [1] of Codd's true RDM.

(Continued from Part 2)

 
"Is this table in 1NF?" is a common question in database practice. On the other hand, "What problems are solved by splitting street addresses into individual columns?", or  What's the best way to store an array in a relational database does not seem to evoke associations with 1NF. This reveals poor foundation knowledge.

Part 1 introduced the poor understanding of 1NF and Part 2 provided a correct definition and explanation. Part 3 explains how 1NF can be enforced by the data sublanguage, which SQL does not.

1. What's wrong with this picture?

NoSQL database management systems give us the opportunity to store our data according to more than one data storage model, but our entity-relationship data modeling notations are stuck in SQL land. Is there any need to model schema-less databases, and is it even possible? --Theodore Hills, The Hybrid Data Model, Dataversity.net

09/19/23: For the latest on this subject see: FIRST NORMAL FORM - A DEFINITIVE GUIDE

Note: This is a 11/23/17 revision of Part 2 of a three-part series that replaced all of my previous posts on the subject (pages of which redirect here), in order to further tighten integration with the McGoveran formalization and interpretation [1] of Codd's true RDM.
(Cont'd from Part 1)
 
Part 1 raised the issue of poor understanding of Codd's concept of a simple domain with atomic values underlying 1NF. In Part 2 I clarify Codd's definition of 1NF and its correct interpretation.