If I remember correctly this is the 5th normal form. Most normalisation stops at 4th Normal Form. Instance like this come under the remit of 5th Normal Form, where theres no real rules per se, only judgement for ease of application development etc....
In fact if you look at J2ee CMP spec. there are seven different relationships including one-to-one, one-to-many etc. for this very reason. Sometimes normalisation is not the best model.
In the case of no teams sharing grounds, then you have a simple straight forward 1-to-1 relationship then there is no reason for grounds data not to be in the same table as the team data. However, if you forsee that at some point teams will be sharing grounds, then you actually have a 1-to-n relationship, which requires a pivot/link table as Aidan suggested. The "forsee" part of this comes under 5th normal form (if I'm remembering this correctly.
Regards
Stephen
-- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
