Third Normal Form -- transitive dependence between two foreign keys?

Question

I am creating a database containing books that I own and have read. I want to track both the book (or "title") that I own and read, and the edition (or "physical bound paper") of that book that I own and read.

Book and Edition are many-to-many. I own multiple editions of the book Democracy in America. I also own an edition called "Hemingway" that contains several books (or "titles"), including one called "For Whom the Bell Tolls".

Thus, I need a bridge between book and edition. My tables are:

Book (book_pk*,title)
Edition (edition_pk*,ISBN,year)
Book_Edition (book_fk,edition_fk)

I believe it is correct to say that the Book_Edition table contains a composite primary key.

Now, I am working on my Read table, which will contain the books that I have read and the date on which I read them. My read table so far contains:

Read (read_pk,date,note)

However, I now need to tie my Read table to my books and editions. It appears to me that book_fk and edition_fk are transitively dependent in this case. So how do I comply with the third normal form?

Option 1:
Modify the Read table to: Read (read_pk,date,note,book_fk,edition_fk)

Option 2:
Modify the Book_Edition table to: Book_Edition (book_edition_pk,book_fk,edition_fk)
Modify the Read table to: Read (read_pk,date,note,book_edition_fk)

Option 3: ???

Any insight would be appreciated. Apologies if this has been treated elsewhere; I saw a couple posts that looked promising but as a relative n00b I was not able to decipher them and apply them to my situation.

---

EDIT per sqlvogel:
Let me take a stab at identifying dependencies -- that is, I am trying to identify places where if Field A is changed, then Field B must or may change. I think I am finding this difficult because books (both "titles" and "collections of bound paper") are inherently permanent. The only time I would expect to edit the title, ISBN, or year fields would be if there is a data entry error. If the ISBN for a particular edition_pk is entered incorrectly, it's probably slightly more likely that the year for the same edition_pk was also entered incorrectly, but is that a dependency?

With respect to the read table, I believe the situation is similar. Records would be created each time a book is read, and theoretically never edited. I want to identify the book and edition that were read on a particular date. If there is a data entry error, it might affect one or more of the fields. In particular, if the wrong book_fk is entered, it's probably more likely that the wrong edition_fk was entered too. Again, is that a dependency I should be worried about?

Is there anything else I need to consider when thinking about dependencies?

Answer 1

Option 1: Read (read_pk,date,note,book_fk,edition_fk)

Assumptions:

{read_pk}->{date,note,book_fk,edition_fk}
{read_pk} is the primary key of Read.

For the sake of example just suppose that {book_fk,edition_fk}->{date}, meaning that each book is read only once (only a single date per book/edition). If you didn't make {book_fk,edition_fk} a candidate key in Read then {book_fk,edition_fk}->{date} would be an example of a non-key dependency in violation of 3NF because the determinant is not a key. The same would be true even if you substituted {book_edition_fk} in place of {book_fk,edition_fk}. i.e. your Option 2 is apparently the same as Option 1 as far as 3NF is concerned.

Since you haven't specified any dependencies I have just given this as an example. I can't say whether those dependencies would be a correct description of your situation. You yourself need to determine what dependencies actually should be in force here.

Answer 2

Transitive dependencies require the dependent attribute to be a non-key attribute. Since the two attributes you're concerned about are foreign keys, you do not have a transitive dependency problem in your structure.

You do not need to alter the original design.