Question

2. Consider an 1NF- relation
StudentDB2 (sID, sFName, sLName, cID, cName, cCr, sectID, iID, iTitle, iLName, grade)
that satisfies the following five functional dependencies:
 FD1 {sID}->{sFName, sLName}
 FD2 {cID}->{cName, cCr}
 FD3 {cID, sectID}->{iID}
 FD4 {iID}->{iTitle, iLName}
 FD5 {sID, cID, sectID}->{grade}
a. What is/are candidate key(s) for relation StudentDB2?
b. Normalize the relation StudentDB2 into a collection of 2NF-relations.
c. Normalize the relation StudentDB2 into a collection of 3NF-relations.
d. Normalize the relation StudentDB2 into a collection of BCNF-relations.
Reminder: Please provide your answers in relational database schemas (as in Question 1). Underline the
primary key of each relation.
3. Consider the following rule/implication
"If {sID}{sLName}, then {sID, sFName}->{sLName}"
involving functional dependencies of the form X->Y, where X and Y are sets of attributes, for the relation
Students3 (sID, sFName, sLName). Provide a formal proof using ONLY the Armstrong's Axiom (i.e.,
reflexivity, augmentation, and transitivity) to prove the rule/implication.
4. Consider the following rule/implication
"If {cID, sectID}->{iID}, then {cID}->{iID}"
involving functional dependencies of the form X->Y, where X and Y are sets of attributes, for the relation
Teach4 (cID, sectID, iID). Give a database instance as a counterexample to disprove the rule/implication.

Answer 1

solution:

We are authorized to answer one question at a time, since you have not mentioned which question you are looking for, so we are answering the first one, please repost your question separately for the remaining question.

d)