The anatomy of plagiarism that was made by authors of "Anchor Modeling"

[vldm10]

I published the following papers on my website:
[1] Some ideas about a new Data Model, Posted on my website at www.dbdesign10.com
on September 17, 2005.
[2] Simple Form, posted on May 15, 2006. on my website at www.dbdesign10.com ,
section 4 and 5.
[3] Database design and data model founded on concept and knowledge constructs,
posted on my website at www.dbdesign11.com submitted on August 21, 2008 to CIT
journal. Posted on March 7, 2009.
[4] Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines, posted onApril 05, 2012. on my web
site at www.dbdesign11.com
--
Always, when I published a paper on my website, I have informed about it this user
group, at the same time. In this way my researches have enabled the following:
1. to be immediately available, after it posted on my website
2. to be globally available
3. to be free
4. to enable that another user groups can use my papers

In this way, my papers are more credible than papers published in journals. My papers
have a global approach, are currently available, free and discussed in another user
groups.
--
In paper [1], I solved "History", completely. This General db theory is based on
states. It is completely a new approach to db theory. I did decomposition for General
db and much more. But what I could not do, it was the decomposition for simpledb.
So, I have managed to solve more complex case, that is the decomposition for General
db in [1]. Then I realized that these are two cases. One case is the
decomposition for db that maintain state. Another case is the decomposition for db
that maintain only current state.
For db which maintain only current state, I have introduced a Simple Form. This was
done in my paper [2].

1.
Anchor Key is a special case of Simple form.
=================================

In my paper [2], section 4.1, may 2006, I wrote the following:
"In fact Simple Form suggests that a "good" design starts at the conceptual level.
The design of an entity (relationship) should satisfy two conditions:
(a) The construction of the key so that key is simple.
(b) The attributes of an entity (relationship) should be mutually independent.
Of course, this second condition is natural. The attributes of an entity
(relationship) in the real world are not dependent.
The conditions for Simple Form, that the key is simple and that the attributes are
mutually independent, in fact, mean that relational schema R is in 2NF, 3NF, BCNF,
5NF(PJ/NF) and that the relation is equal to the join of its binary relations."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that this second condition, which is marked with (b), does not exist in "Anchor
Modeling" on ERM level. Therefore, "Anchor key" is not accurate. So "Anchor Key" is
wrong at the theoretical level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason why "Anchor Key" is not correct, is the following error: it is not
applied Leibniz's law and it is not applied my extension of Leibniz's law.
Therefore, "Anchor Key" (that is a surrogate key) is incorrect. Moreover, it is not
known at all, how is constructed this surrogate key (Anchor key). Obviously, the
authors are not generally aware of this fact. Of course, this is not science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my paper [1], section 1.1, I wrote: "Besides Ack, every entity has an attribute
which is the identifier of the entity or can provide identification of the entity. I
already wrote that the following:" or can provide identification of the entity
"refers to a surrogate key, but more importantly, it does not have to be a surrogate
key, it can be anything that provides the identification of entities. So, again, the
most important thing here is "it can be anything that provides the identification of
entities." If you want, it can be a police dog or semantic machines.

So, it is a special story and a very important story, about what can be the
identifier of an entity. I especially described it in my "theory of identification".
With the introduction of Simple Form, this part of the theory is completely covered.
As I already wrote, Simple Form covers the surrogate key and much more.
Once again, I will take this example which I have already shown in thread-u "Does
the phrase " Russell's paradox " should be replaced with another phrase?":
Example: Honda dealer received 200 new Honda Civic cars, which all have the same
attributes. Imagine now that someone has wiped out all the VIN numbers from these
Honda Civic. Then we get 200 cars that have all the attributes the same.
If in this situation we apply surrogates, then we will get a disaster. If we keep the
industry-standard identifiers, then we do not need surrogates.
Note that this problem with a surrogate key, there is for all industrial products of
this type.
As I already wrote the surrogate key can be applied in very small number of cases.

Conclusion
=========
In this post, it is shown that "Anchor Key" (that is the surrogate key) is
incorrectly constructed. It was also shown, that I had already given the general
conditions for identifier of an entity and that "surrogate key" is only a special
case of my Simple Form.

All important results in their first and the main paper from 2009, authors of Anchor
Modeling plagiarized from my paper.
The authors of "Anchor modeling" introduced a few "new" fewer important things in
this their work from 2009. For all these their "new results" I have proved that they
are wrong. This I demonstrated publicly, on this user group in my following threads:
(i) The original version
(ii) some information about anchor modeling

What is the most important here, it is that these are very important results and
quite new results and ideas in the theory of databases.
To see the reaction of people on these ideas, see my thread "Database design, Keys
and some other things", posted on this user group in 2005. In that thread in this
user group the first time I publicly presented these ideas. Of course in the
beginning, these ideas have provoked suspicious to me.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In this post, I will describe the anatomy of plagiarism of "states" from my work.
This plagiarism was made by the authors of "Anchor Modeling".
First I would like to say that the key thing here is the idea. It is the idea about
the world. Here I think of some small world, with which will be possible to operate
via information, ie by using some database.
I will remind you that some mathematicians already tried to implement a similar idea.
Saul Kripke introduced possible worlds. This idea did not bring a solution, because
their own basic concepts are not defined. It is not clear what the world is. It is
also not clear what it is a possible world.
Another theory was done by John Barwise, it's Situation Theory. But this theory also
did not provide a solution. Barwise was good and talented mathematician, but he died
relatively young.
Here comes the most serious problem. It is primarily the following problem - how the
world is constructed.
My solution to these problems is the introduction of states. Some small world has its
own states. Depending on the time of observation of this world, we can define the
current state, the history of past states, and the history of the future states.
These states we can manage by using data. I use Entity / Relationship mathematics and
philosophy, for which I have found that it is defined by Kurt Gödel. So I built the
theory of states of entities and relationships, introduced a number of other things
and developed a model that fully resolves the problem of changes, history, and many
other things. Obviously, states are the most important part of my solution. My
solution that uses "states", for the first time solves many important things. I will
mention now some of these things:

1.
Today's logical theory deals with the current states. My introduction to states,
provides that we can work with thoughts and statements about the past. Given that
"past" is a very broad term, it is clear that "states" as defined in my paper,
completely and accurately solve the problem of "truth and the past".

2.
Given that my solution precisely defines states of entities and relationships, this
means that it is now possible to precisely work the semantics of the past tense.

3.
In Model theory, when we use objects (or relationships), then the corresponding
interpretation must be done for the corresponding states of objects / relationships.
In other words, interpretations depend on states of objects / relationships.

4.
As I wrote, identifiers of states enable the "decomposition into atomic structures".
They also provide a link between atomic facts and the corresponding factual
sentences. In my paper "Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines" I presented that
facts are thoughts that correspond to atomic structures. Based on them, we make
complex thoughts ie corresponding complex sentences.

5.
Solutions from my paper "Semantic databases and semantic machines" enable that
databases can maintain certain history of states from futures. So my database
solution allows you to manage states of the past, present and future.

In the above text, I wanted to explain the importance of the idea of "states".
Plagiarising "states" from my papers, authors of "Anchor Modeling" did plagiarism of
important theory that addresses to a number of very important things. Some of these
fundamental things are listed in the mentioned five points. So I want to point to
plagiarism of the large-scale.

I will now explain the anatomy of this plagiarism.
In my thread "The original version" I described plagiarism that did the authors of
"Anchor Modeling" in their first work from 2009th
I also described the great errors from "Anchor Modeling" referring to parts of their
work that are not plagiarism. One of the catastrophic errors of the main work of
"Anchor Modeling" which won first prize at the congress ER - 2009, is the following:
The authors of Anchor Modeling are using both data models, ERM and RM. In the thread
"The original version" I turned attention to this big mistake because the problem of
mapping from one to another data model is not resolved, except in my solution. With
such a large error, the paper "Anchor Modeling" is very bad, because the problem of
mapping between different data models, is known and there are a number of papers in
this field, from very well-known authors. Obviously, this is not known to the
authors of "Anchor Modeling". What's stranger, that in spite of these errors, they
got first prize at the ER, 2009.
After my presentation of errors of "Anchor Modeling" to this user group, authors of
"Anchor Modeling" in a short time, they released their second paper in which they
fixed mentioned big mistake. The authors of "Anchor Modeling" fixed these errors as
follows: they were again plagiarized my results from my paper. They plagiarized my
theory about "states" and even my technique. They plagiarized my identifier of states
of relationships. We can notice that this is the most complex case with the states.
The states are the most important part of my model.

Please note that I did states in 2005, five years prior this their work in which they
plagiarized states. At the Congress ER-2009 where the "Anchor Modeling" won the first
prize, for their first paper, Mr. Peter Chen was honorary president. This second
paper of "Anchor Modeling" was published by Data & Knowledge Engineering" journal,
which Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.
I sent my claim of plagiarism to Dr. Peter Chen, the Editor-in-Chief of the mentioned
journal. Here is Mr. P. Chen's response that he sent me four years ago:
===============================================
Dear Mr. Odrljin:

This is the acknowledgment of your message. After investigation, we will respond to
you.
In the meantime, please send us your mailing address and organization affiliation (if
any).

Sincerely Yours,
-P. Chen

Editor-in-Chief
Data & Knowledge Engineering Journal
================================================
I never received a response about "investigation" from Mr. P. Chen. I write about
this because on this user group, ten years lasted discussion of my results, from
September 2005. I think that discussants have the right to know the truth and what
happened.

My message to people from this user group is that when you write something, then they
can use copyright option.
--
Next International conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2015) will be in Stockholm,
Sweden. One of the authors of "Anchor Modeling", Mr Paul Johannesson is one of
General Co-Chairs of this conference.

In the end, I will give a definition of plagiarism. As I'm US citizen and Croatan
citizen and Mr. Peter Chen is US citizen, I will give definition of plagiarism from
US University Stanford:
Stanford sees plagiarism as the "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate
credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work,
whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research,
strategies, writing or other form." (Wikipedia)

Please note that all my papers are stored and displayed on my private website. I pay
for this web site.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

Here are a few important comments, which are related to plagiarism of authors of "Anchor Modeling". These authors plagiarized my identifiers of states of relationships. These identifiers you can see in definition 16, see their paper submitted to Data & Knowledge Engineering, October, 2010. (it is their second ("fixed") paper)
I would like once again to point out the method, how the plagiarism was done:
The authors of "Anchor Modeling" plagiarized the "states" from my papers after I showed that their solutions from the papers from 2009 are erroneous and represent a deep lack of understanding of some basic things of database theory.
This second plagiarism they have published in their paper from the 2010th

In the end, I'll just mention that the authors of "Anchor Modeling" does not define "states". This, what the authors of "Anchor Modeling" are doing, it really becomes grotesque. As I described in my previous post, states are of a fundamental character for several areas.

The definition of state is very complex. Just to mention that I did decomposition into binary structures, introduced facts and knowledge and the new data model that can maintain states. Note that I presented "states" in my paper from 2005. I have also presented the states, on this user group on September 2005, 10 years ago.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In this post I will write about a fundamental problem that is not solved in "Anchor
Modeling" at all. Here, I am talking about the following paper: "Anchor Modeling an agile modeling technique using the sixth normal form for structurally and temporally evolving data" from November, 2009.

When we talk about RM and ERM, then both of these data models are based on
attributes. Here, RM stands for Relational Model, and ERM stands for
EntityRelationship model.
In ERM, entities are composed of attributes. In RM relations are composed of
attributes. However surrogate keys are not attributes. Moreover, surrogate keys do
not exist in the real world.
It seems to me that Edgar Codd solve this problem in such a way that he forbid users
to see surrogate keys (see paper RM/T).

In the "Anchor Modeling" is not mentioned this case, at all. So it raises the
following fundamental question: How are formed predicates and statements about real
entities and their attributes. In this their paper, authors claim the following: "An
Anchor model is a relational database schema that displays a high degree of
normalization, reuse of data and the ability to store historical data." (see section 1 )

Note that only in the my model, surrogate keys are exactly solved.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In their main paper: "Anchor Modeling - An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth
Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data", this authors put in the
title the following text: "using the Sixth Normal Form". In this post I will prove
that they don't and can not use Sixth Normal Form. To prove this, I will use my
example from 2005. See my paper "Some ideas about a new Data Model", Example 2.5 at
http://www.dbdesign10.com
Note that this my paper was "severely" discussed on this user group, for several
years. Anyone can see this discussion.

Example:
The table Savings has only two attributes: Amount and AmountKey. The second attribute
is the primary key. The table is simplified for the purpose paying attention to
creating knowledge. Usually we create a table like this:

(i)
AmountKey Amount
----------------------------------
...
116 $2000.00
...

However if we want to implement knowledge on the level of a value of the attribute
Amount, then we can, for example add six new columns in this table: Date1, Date2,
Operater1, Date3, Date4, Operater2. Table Saving now can look like:


AmountKey Amount Date1 Date2 Operator1 Date3 Date4 Operator2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
116 $2000.00 5/Oct/04 1 John Mayell 6/Oct/04 1 Paul Jones
117 $2000.00 5/Oct/04 28/Oct/04 Mick Smith 6/Oct/04 29/Oct/04 Lee Evans
118 $2500.00 28/Oct/04 1 Mick Smith 29/Oct/)4 1 Lee Evans

End of the example
================================================================

1.
My main structures from the above example have the following forms (surrogate-key,
one-attribute, meta-data), exactly the same data structure uses "Anchor Modeling" -
they use (surrogate key, one-attribute and meta data). Note that this my example was
presented in my paper in 2005. The first paper from "Anchor Modeling" is from 2009
year. The "Anchor Modeling" some things have changed and I have shown that all these
changes have faults.

2.
Note also that above example has the following data structure:
(AmountKey, Amount, Date1, Date2, Operator1, Date3, Date4, Operator2) . This
structure is not in 6NF. We can note that the following data structure (surrogate-
key, attribute, meta-data) is not in 6NF. So it is not possible that "Anchor
modeling" can use 6NF, as is asserted in the title of this paper.

3.
Note that relations that represent relationships with metadata are not in 6NF.
Moreover, relations that represent only relationships (without meta data), are not in
6NF.
Again, it is not possible that "Anchor modeling" can use 6NF, as is asserted in the
title of the mantioned paper.

4.
The authors of "Anchor Modeling" are defined all important data structures, without
the use of metadata. Thus, for example, their main structure Historized Attributes,
Hatt (C, D, T) does not have metadata at all. On the other hand, metadata are very
important for "Anchor Modeling" and "History".
In the above mentioned paper, these authors have written the following justification
why they left out the metadata: "Although important, the metadata is not discussed
further since its use does not differ from that of other modeling techniques."
It is important to understand that nobody can use 6NF as it is stated in the title of
"Anchor Modeling". 6NF is just a name, 6NF does not have any procedure which can put
some relation in 6NF.

5.
Now, how to explain the anatomy of this kind of "science":

(i) How they did that so simple this decomposition of entities and relationships into
following atomic structures, "Historized Attributes" and "Historized Ties". How to
prove this "decomposition" and "recomposition", because nobody can do it.

(ii)
If someone do not believe, then look at title of paper "Anchor modeling - an agile
modeling using the sixth normal form for STRUCTURALLY and temporally evolving data" .
But 6NF does not work with metadata?

(iii)
The authors of "Anchor Modeling" work simultaneously in two data models, ERM and RM.
In my Thread, "The original version", I wrote that the mapping between two data
models is done only in my data model. After that, the authors of "Anchor Modeling"
have plagiarized my work and took the most important part of my work - the theory of
the states.

I mention all of this again, because it is now in a broader context. In this thread I
write about other serious theoretical errors of the authors of "Anchor Modeling",
that is, I am writing about their professional competence.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In my my last post (from 26/03/2015) I noted that "Anchor Modeling" is incorrect in
fundamental matters and that it is not in accordance with fundamentals of database
theory.
In this post I will concentrate on two fundamental matter that were first solved in
my papers. Five years later, the authors of "Anchor Modeling" plagiarize these
results. Those results are:

(i) The presentation of the real world using the theory of states
(ii) Decomposition of data structures into atomic structures

Theory of states
================
Some of the very important direct consequence of my theory of states, I wrote in this
thread in my post from 17.03.2015. These consequences of my theory of states for the
first time addressed the aforementioned important problems in logic, semantics, Model
Theory and database theory. I mention this because I want to emphasize the great
proportions of this plagiarism.

Decomposition of data structures into atomic structures
=========================================================
When it comes to decomposition of the data structure, then the main paper of "Anchor
Modeling" from 2009 is unprecedented. In this paper the decomposition of data
structure was not proven. Moreover, "decomposition" is not even mentioned in this
paper. The authors of "decomposition" are only defined "Historized and Static
Attribute" and "Historized and Static Tie".
"Decomposition" is what many theorists has failed to solve. Two of these unsuccessful
attempts were made by E. Codd and Date & Darwen. Codd in RM / T, and Date & Darwen in
6NF.

===================================================================
In order to explain the anatomy of the decomposition of data structures, I need more
space.So, below I will write this explanation.
===================================================================
We can notice that there is no procedure that can put an arbitrary relation in 6NF.
But the authors of "Anchor Modeling" are addressed their work with the following
title: "Anchor modeling - an agile modeling technique using the sixth normal form for
structurally and temporally evolving data". Obviously, part of the text "using sixth
normal form" from this title should give readers the impression that in "Anchor
Modeling" is proved "decomposition".

First, I would like to say a few words about "sixth normal form" (6NF for shortcut).
This is about the the most important thing in db theory, that is, it is about the
decomposition into atomic structures. It is clear that the atomic structure must be
in the following format: (K, A) where K is the simple key and A is an attribute.
Codd has tried to resolve the matter with the introduction of "Simple Key". But the
RM / T is unsuccessful attempt. In this paper Codd did not understand some things.
The most important thing that he did not realize is that there is a "History". He
tried to resolve this matter by using "invisible surrogate". However, this solution
is beyond the scope of science.

Date, Darwen & Lorentzos introduced 6NF. Equivalent form of 6NF is as follows:
"Relvar is in 6NF iff it consists of a simple key, plus at most one additional
attribute."
So, in fact, they declared that atomic structure is 6NF. In other words they gave
another name for the atomic structure. This name is 6NF. But they did not do only
important thing - they did not explain how to decompose data structures into atomic
structures.
The authors of "Anchor modeling" with their reliance on 6NF, show a serious lack of
understanding of important things in db theory.

In my papers I showed that db theory can not work as before but must be broken down
into two distinct theories:
(i) Simple Theory that only maintains and solves current states
(ii) General Theory that maintains and solves the "history", changes and other
things.
--
So I showed that the decomposition into atomic structures must be broken into two
theory. In Simple Theory, it is Simple Form, and in General Theory it is the General
Form.

In my paper Simple Form, posted on May 15, 2006. on my website at www.dbdesign10.com
, section 4 and 5, I presented Simple Form:
=================================
4.1 Definition.
Relation schema R (K, A1, A2,...,An) is in Simple Form if R satisfies:
R (K, A1, A2, ...,An) = R1 (K, A1) join R2 (K, A2), join ... join Rn (K, An)
if and only if
1. Key K is simple
2. A1, A2,... , An are mutually independent.
==================================
In my discussion with Derek (see thread "some information about anchor modeling") I
explained, that K from Simple Form can be:
1. Industry-standard key. This type of keys is defined by international
organizations.
2. Locally defined keys. This type of keys is defined by the local companies. For
example telephone company uses its own system of keys in collecting money for their
services.
3. Surrogate key. This is not about Cood's surrogate key. The surrogate key is stored
only in db memory. In the first two cases keys are stored in the db memory and in the
real world.
Please note that "surrogate key" is acceptable for me. One form of surrogates I use
in my solutions. But in the discussions on this user group I criticized Codd's
"invisible surrogates". After careful analysis, somewhere around 2005, I realized
that Codd's "invisible surrogate" is the wrong solution. So, when I criticize
surrogate key, I think on Codd's "invisible surrogate". At this user group, people
were discussing mainly the Codd's surrogate key.
4. Previous three cases belong to Simple db. When it comes to General db, then I use
keys that represent identifiers of states.
--
Based on the above cases, it is clear that 6NF does not exist, but there are the
above mentioned four cases. These four cases allow decomposition of data structures
in the atomic structures.
--
In my paper "Some ideas about a new Data Model", Posted on my website at
www.dbdesign10.com on September 17, 2005. , section 1.1, I wrote: "Besides Ack,

every entity has an attribute which is the identifier of the entity or can provide
identification of the entity. I already wrote that the following:" or can provide
identification of the entity
"refers to a surrogate key, but more importantly, it does not have to be a surrogate
key, it can be anything that provides the identification of entities. So, again, the
most important thing here is "it can be anything that provides the identification of

entities." It is important to realize that in my data model, the identifier of entity
can be represented with "K" that is specified in my Simple Form.
===================================
Conclusion: The authors of "Anchor Modeling" made a big mistake. It is not possible
"decomposition" which is based on 6NF. In other words, does not exist
"decomposition", which can be done using 6NF.
There are only four, above mentioned decomposition. Three cases for Simple DB and one
for General db theory. In my last post (26/03/2015) I showed that 6NF does not work
with metadata, that means 6NF does not give the decomposition for General db. My
General Form provides a decomposition for General db.
My conclusion is that "Anchor Modeling" does not belong to science, because here I
demonstrated that "Anchor Modeling" can not be based on scientific facts.
===================================

What have the authors of "Anchor Modeling" plagiarized here?
************************************************************
They introduced "Historized and Static Attributes" and "Historized and Static Ties".
"Historized structures" belongs to my db General theory. "Static data structures"
belongs to my Simple db theory.

However, I am the first(10 years ago), who introduced a new division in the theory of
databases. General theory of databases is done using my theory of states. I introduced Simple form and Simple db that maintains current states. As far
as I know, I'm the only one who did the decomposition for General db. I'm the only
one who did the decomposition for Simple db.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In this post I will write about surrogate keys, since it forms a cornerstone of the
"Anchor Modeling".

1. All data structures in my model, which are important for the surrogate key, I
published four years prior to the publication of the paper about "Anchor Modeling".
=====================================================================================
Here in the title I used the word "I published data-structures" and not "I've
resolved a data-structure". The reason for this is the following; these data-
structures I did long before I published them. With the such complex changes, it was
necessary to check many things.
--
My model introduced for the first time, the following facts, that are among other
things important for surrogates:

1.
As I wrote in my model was introduced and developed the theory of states.

2.
Decomposition of data structures into atomic structures was done by using the theory
of states. It is in my opinion the only possible decomposition of data-structures in
the general case.

3.
In my data model, all databases are divided on two types; Simple db and General db.
In my post of February 13, 2013 in thread "some information about anchor modeling" I
presented what General db can solve. General db is a totally new kind of database and
it for the first time solves a number of significant problems.
The above-mentioned three points give a very broad basis for working with identifiers
of entities. This primarily refers to a broad basis to work with surrogates.

4.
I explained in this thread surrogates are only one case of all possible cases, that
the identifier of an entity can be. (see my Simple Form). Such a broad theoretical
approach does not exist in "Anchor Modeling", for their most important concept.

5.
The theory of identification is introduced.
In my data model I concentrated on identifiers of states and identifier of entities.
Identifiers of entities can be: Surrogates, Locally-defined keys and Internationally-
defined keys( as I explained in this thread in my analysis of the Simple Form). I am
focused on the last two types (Locally and Internationally defined keys) and less on
surrogates. The reason is that the surrogates are extremely small part of the
business applications.

6.
In simple form, the conditions under which surrogates may be, are given. These
conditions are not given in "Anchor modeling", so the "Anchor Modeling" is not legal.
Today in business applications that work with serious resources, for example, banks
and airline booking systems, this approach is unacceptable, as is the approach of the
authors of the anchor modeling.
------------------
Please note that the conditions for surrogates are not given, nor are given for
Codd's surrogates - this means that Codd's theory of surrogates is poor, as well as
"Anchor Modeling" theory. From the point of practical application, Codd's surrogates
are "invisible". Obviously "invisible surrogates" do not fall within the domain of
science.
Note that C. Date wrote for "anchor keys" the following: "Does this state of affairs
remind you of the RM/T discipline..." (see C. Date, "Database design & Relational
theory, Normal forms & All that jazz", page 211).
This Date writing is not true. In RM/T, E. Code writes that his surrogate key is
different from a user-controlled surrogate. We can notice that "anchor key" is a type
of user-controlled surrogates, it is not the type of Codd's "invisible surrogates".
However, we can notice also that Codd in RM / T writes about the weaknesses of user-
controlled surrogates. User-controlled keys are anchor keys. So, all that Codd wrote
about the bad aspects of a user-controlled surrogates (that is anchor keys), should
be added to my list of bad characteristics of surrogates. So this list of bad
characteristics of "Anchor Modeling" becomes too great list.
---------------------

7.
As I wrote, the essential difference between the surrogate key and Locally
(Internationally) defined keys is as follows: The surrogate key enables the subject
to work with one memory while Locally (Internationally) defined keys allow work
between two (or more) memories, including the transfer of thoughts and semantics
between subjects that use these memories. Here we assume that sentences express
thoughts. (see my paper "Semantic databases and semantic machines", section 3)

8.
In my db design procedure, the first step is the application of Leibniz 'Law on
construction of entities. The second step may be the application of the General Law
(I've already talked in this thread about the General Law). It can be applied to the
example below. In this example, we can see a major drawback in the application of
surrogate keys.
It is important to understand the following two things:
(i) Here we apply db design in ERM. Database design in ERM has not so far been
presented in the form of Leibniz's and General Law.
(ii) We do not use here first-order predicate calculus. Leibniz's law is a second-
order predicate calculus.

Example: Honda dealer received 200 new Honda Civic cars, which all have the same
attributes. Imagine now that someone has wiped out all the VIN numbers from these
Honda Civic. Then we get 200 cars that have all the attributes the same.
If in this situation we apply surrogates, then we will get a disaster. If we keep the
industry-standard identifiers, then we do not need surrogates.
Note that this problem with a surrogate key, there is for all industrial products of
this type.

Far as I know, no one has done the above mentioned eight points.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In my previous thread (from April 5th 2015), I showed the theory from my papers that
provides an appropriate theoretical base for surrogates. Conditions that surrogates
must meet also were shown. So, in my last thread, I presented a small theory related
to surrogates. Authors of the "Anchor Modeling" did not do it. Conditions for
surrogates E. Codd also did not present in RM / T.
However, in my data model, I concentrated on the cases, which cover almost 100% of
applications in the real industry. When it comes to surrogates, then I think that is
enough to present the corresponding theory,

1. In this post will be presented that the authors of the anchor modeling unclear
presented their data model. It is not clear what is their data model and what is not.
===================================================================
(i)
In their paper from 2009, which won first prize at the ER09, the authors of "Anchor
Modeling", work simultaneously in two data models, ERM and RM. But in their paper is
not done data mapping, at all. So it is not clear which data model they use, because
it is impossible to use both models at the same time.

In my Thread, "The original version", I wrote that the mapping between two data

models is solved only in my data model.
After my presentation of errors in "Anchor Modeling", on this user group, authors of
"Anchor Modeling" published their second paper, in which they corrected mentioned
errors.The authors of "Anchor Modeling" fixed these errors as follows: they were
again plagiarized my results from my paper. This time they plagiarized my theory

about "states" and even my technique. They plagiarized my identifier of states of

relationships. We can notice that states of relationships is the most complex case
with the states. The states are the most important part of my model. They published
in Data & Knowledge Engineering journal, editor P. Chen.

(ii)
In their award-winning paper from 2009, the authors of "Anchor Modeling", wrote the
following: "In this paper, we propose a modeling technique for data warehousing,
called anchor modeling..." (see "Abstract", page 1).

(iii)
But on page 2, in this paper, they claim :"An Anchor model is a relational database
schema..."

(iv)
On page 13 they wrote "Anchor modeling is similar to Entity Relationship modeling.

(v)
On page 13 they wrote "Anchor modeling is similar to ULM".

(i)
On page 13, authors of "Anchor Modeling" wrote "Anchor modeling has several
similarities to the ORM".

(vii)
On page 2, they wrote :
"Although important, metadata is not discussed further since its use does not differ
from that of other modeling technique."
This is not true at all. "Metadata" work quite differently for General db, than in
conventional applications.
They keep the "History" and assist at identification. Metadata is much more used here
in General db than in ordinary databases. For example, in my databases for any data
that is entered in the database, I take without a user's knowledge, user
identification, time, date, id of the station from which it was entered. If there are
several procedures for data entry, then I enter the name of the procedure, with which
the data was entered.
In the process of creating identifiers, metadata can play a significant role. We can
see that neither Anchor modeling nor RM / T do not use metadata for identifiers. By
the way they use the keys, while I use identifiers instead of keys.

As I showed authors of anchor modeling did not work with "metadata" in their paper
because they could not prove "decomposition" on the atomic structures and using of
6NF.

From these citations it seems that authors of "Anchor Modeling" have no clear idea of
what exactly is their data model.

2. What my data model can model.
=================================
My data model can make a world. Of course here I do not mean some infinite world. It
also does not mean the world in terms of religion, philosophy and so on.
Here I am thinking of a small world that represents a whole and which can be used in
industry, medicine etc.

The following two things related to the world are the most important:
(i) the world can maintain its past, present and future.
(ii) the main control part of the world is a collection of information, i.e. data
from the appropriate database.

Work with current states can be described using "Simple db " theory and the work with past states can be maintained using "General db" theory. Regarding current states and past states, on this user group there was a lot of discussion, and therefore I will not describe it again.

"History" of the future states can be realized as I described it in my paper: "Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines". In this paper I presented databases that
actually work with sets of programs. These databases also maintained the state of the
program and can work with the atomic structures of the program. Therefore, these
databases can maintain parts of the program, that is parts of the corresponding
processes.

I think this is a completely new topic that could be discussed more.

Vladimir Odrljin

[Eric]

On 2015-04-18, vldm10 <vld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
8>< --------

> In the process of creating identifiers, metadata can play a significant
> role. We can see that neither Anchor modeling nor RM / T do not use
> metadata for identifiers.

I am not convinced that the above sentence says what you meant to say.
As it stands it is a double negative and is equivalent to

Anchor modeling uses metadata for identifiers
AND
RM / T uses metadata for identifiers

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

[vldm10]

Considering that this is a database solution of great importance and that
significantly changes the current theory of data bases, this plagiarism is very
carefully worked out, and therefore it also took a long time for proper display of
plagiarism.
My paper has been published in 2005, that is four to five years before the papers of
the "Anchor Modeling", which were published in 2009 and 2010th. My paper, I explained
in detail on this user group. From 2005 to 2015. I want to emphasize that there is a
little scientific papers which have been so thoroughly explained and presented by an
author.

1.
In this post I will present the anatomy of one more plagiarism, that authors of
"Anchor modeling" made. „Historized Attributes“ and time are important parts of
anchor modeling.
*******************************************************************************
Their main data structure "Historized attribute", the authors of "Anchor Modeling"
are defined as follows: Hatt (C, D, T). Here we have: C is a surrogate key of the
entity, D is the attribute of the entity, T is time.
For example, if a car had the blue color, and then the black color, then the
following table represents history of color attribute, in anchor modeling:

Example1:
313 blue 2008-08-20
313 red 2009-11-09
...

In "Historized attribute" the authors of the anchor modeling introduced only
DateFrom. This is because they believe that "DateTo" is equal to "next DateFrom".
--
And this is plagiarism of my paper. If you look at example2 (it's below) from my
paper from 2005, then you may notice that for key = 117, we have DateTo = 28 / Oct /
04. For key = 118 we have DateFrom = 28 / Oct / 04. So these two dates are the same.
Here I actually used the construction, which makes DateTo same with the next
DateFrom. Obviously this my design from 2005 was plagiarized from the author of
"Anchor Modeling" in 2009.

Note that Date3 and "next" Date4 in example2 do not have equal value. In short, in
example2, I gave solution for "bitemporal" data. Date of events in the real world is
represented in one way - Date1 and Date2 are date from the real world events.
The system's date (the date when the data had been entered in the database) are
presented in a different way - Date3 and Date4 are system's date. With example2 I
wanted to show one solution that is more general. This matter is not "a must" as
authors of anchor modeling proposed it and misunderstand it.
This my example2, can be understood, for example, as "data entry screen" or a derived
relation. The intention here was to show that there is a more general approach to
this issue.
I showed that if I want I can present the real world data in the different way than
system's data.

Thus my solution can work as well as the solution that is plagiarized by the authors
of "Anchor Modeling". Or my solution can work also as time intervals. Thus, the
authors of "Anchor Modeling" plagiarized just one special case of my solution for
bitemporal data. Note that their solution can not work with time intervals, because
6NF does not support time interval (in general case). Note that authors of „Anchor
Modeling“ put 6NF in title of their

In fact I did not introduced bitemporal data in my papers. In contrast to anchor
modeling, I have introduced a more general solution in my papers - this solution is
n-temporal data.

In relation to the work with date, which are applied in "Historized Attributes", we
can notice that when data-entry-person enters an incorrect date in Historized
Attributes, then it will be created a mess in the Historized Attributes. Since
Historized Attributes are the main data structures in "Anchor modeling" then it means
that there will be chaos in the "Anchor Modeling".

Let me explain this in more details:
"Historized Attributes" have the following scheme: (surrogate-key, attribute, time).
First, we can notice that in this scheme, there is no "metadata". All "metadata" are
reduced to a "T".
In their paper "Analysis of normal forms for anchor-tables", these authors are
proving that Historized attributes are in the 6NF, but proof was made without
metadata. By the way, the most difficult part of the proof is "metadata". Example2 is
just a small example about how much "metadata" can be complex. (see example2 later in
this post).

The key is the part that authors of "Anchor modeling" changed in this plagiarism. The
creation of this key belongs to the authors of "Anchor Modeling".
This key has the following scheme (surrogate-key, time), now we can imagine that the
data-entry person enters the wrong time into database. Or that enters the wrong value
for attribute. Or make a mistake for both - for attribute and for time (on purpose).
For example, if the error is made only in the attribute, then it is impossible to
enter the correction, because we would get a double key. If one delete the wrong
attribute, then there is no history. Longer analysis of this ad hoc case would show a
real chaos in the db design using anchor modeling.
***********************************************************************

===============================================================
(This example is from 2005, see at my paper „Some ideas about a new data model“ at
http://www.dbdesign10.com )

Example2:

The table Savings has only two attributes: Amount and AmountKey. The second attribute
is the primary key. The table is simplified for the purpose paying attention to
creating knowledge. Usually we create a table like this:

(i)
AmountKey Amount
----------------------------------
...
116 $2000.00
...

However if we want to implement knowledge on the level of a value of the attribute
Amount, then we can, for example add six new columns in this table: Date1, Date2,
Operater1, Date3, Date4, Operater2. Table Saving now can look like:


AmountKey Amount Date1 Date2 Operator1 Date3 Date4 Operator2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...
116 $2000.00 5/Oct/04 1 John Mayell 6/Oct/04 1
Paul Jones
117 $2000.00 5/Oct/04 28/Oct/04 Mick Smith 6/Oct/04 29/Oct/04 Lee
Evans
118 $2500.00 28/Oct/04 1 Mick Smith 29/Oct/)4 1
Lee Evans

End of the example2.
==================================================================================

Example 2 shows that 6NF can not do the decomposition of data structures on atomic
structure.
General db is totally contrary based of RM. In the RM, we have the following
operations with the data: delete, add and update. In the General db we only add data.
In the General DB we have redundancy. Moreover, redundancy is desirable in the
General db in terms of preserving all that is done in the database; and that is the
exact opposite of RM. The authors of "Anchor Modeling" it does not even realize. They
put 6NF in the title of their award-winning paper from 2009. However, normal forms
belong to RM.

2.
Here I will give some examples which I think throwing more light on the anatomy of
the plagiarism that is presented in this thread.
==================================================================
In thread „Full Name as Composite Attribute“ at this user group, in my post on 28
March, 2005, I wrote: Regarding the "Full Name" composite attribute, the situation
can be more complex, because giving names can be a very complex procedure. Here is
one example; we are supposed to create a DB with Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and some
other Walt Disney characters. We can put them into tables, create tables with them,
create some of their
relationships, i.e. - we can create a Relational DB. But, although people know much
about these characters, even their personalities, they are not from the real world;
Walt Disney made them up. So, there is no Conceptual Model because there is no
mapping from the real world for these full names. In fact Frege's theory about names
can explain similar examples. I think that those members of this group who are good
at Semantics and Mathematical Logic can give us more valuable comments about theory
of names.“
--
In thread „the two questions at this user group, in my post on 28 November, 2007, I
wrote:
„Btw, can be many combinations and cases - databases with abstract entities (Donald
Duck, Mickey Mouse, Pegasus...) All computers' games are not from real world, there
are databases for future (an annual budget, for example), multimedia db, etc.“
--
In the above two post I wrote about databases with abstract objects. Now, on
wikipedia I can find an example of ancor modeling database with abstract objects. The
database contains the following abstract objects:

„An example of an anchor for the identities of the nephews of Donald Duck is a set of
1-tuples: {⟨#42⟩, ⟨#43⟩, ⟨#44⟩} “

( Look at the web address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Modeling )

=================================================================
In my thread "The original version", at this user group, in my post on 28 December,
2010, I wrote:
„It is possible for two men to possess different values for a certain property, for
the same period of time. Similarly, this can happen for a relationship. A manager
wishes to record both of these values. He wants to maintain statistic of bad workers.
He also wants online db.
The following case is for instance possible in court: One side claims the car in an
accident was blue, the other claims it was red, while the police claims the car was
black. The court requests that all of these three colors be recorded in the database.
Obviously, Anchor Modeling cannot solve this.“
-----------------------------------------------------------
At anchor modeling website:
http://www.anchormodeling.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Back-to-the-Moment.pdf
there is the following text (from 2013):

„It is about concurrency
•Even if A and B disagree, say on a value for a property, such that:
A uttered “Leonardo’s hair was brown.”
B uttered “Leonardo’s hair was blonde.”
both views can be recorded, resulting in
a concurrent-temporal implementation“
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
As I wrote in my thread, anchor modeling canot solve the above problem. Here is my
explanation: „Historized Attribute“ has the following form (surrogate key, attribute,
time) and
Key = (surrogate key, time)
Obviously, „Historited Attribute“ will have the duplicate key for the above two
attributes – brown and blonde. Note that my solution can support this case.
==================================================================
I would like to mention that there are several theories about the time. We are
talking about the application of time in the databese theory. When it comes to
applying time in databases, then usually there are two theories.
The first theory proposes that time is continuous.
The second theory proposes that time is not continuous, that is there is quantum of
time. The name of this quantum is Chronon.
Both theories are based on hypotheses, there are not proved. My data model can
support both hypotheses.


Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

I made mistakes in the text. Here should be the following text:
Anchor modeling does not use "metadata" for surrogates. RM/T also does not use
"metadata" for surrogates.
In my paper "Some idea about a new data model" from 2005 (Look at
http://www.dbdesign10.com) , I introduced identifiers instead of keys. I have
identifiers of states, that identify states of entities and I have identifiers of
entities that identify entities (or can provide identification of the corresponding entity).

Note also that I do not use the term metadata. Instead of metadata I have defined knowledge about an entity and knowledge about a state of an entity.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

Authors of " Anchor modeling" have plagiarized an enormous amount from my papers and
very important parts from my papers.
I wrote about these plagiarisms in three big threads on this user group. These are
the following threads: "The original version", "some information about anchor
modeling" and "The anatomy of plagiarism that was made by the authors of Anchor
Modeling ". Readers who are interested in more details, they can find these details
in the aforementioned threads . In this post I'll put together in one place a list of
only the most important plagiarisms.

My papers are presented on my website and on this user group. The authors of "Anchor
modeling" plagiarized the following from my papers:

1. The idea of division of database theory into two prats. Note that existing database theories
did not implement the classification of the theory into two parts. It was my idea.

2. Special theory about databases which work only with the current state. These databases do
not work with changes. I named these databases - Simple db. Authors of "Anchor
modeling" plagiarized this idea so that they introduced "static and historized" data
structures for attributes and ties.

3. Special theory about General databases . In "anchor modeling" these databases
were called
historized (attributes and ties). In my thread "some information about anchor modeling" at
this user group, in my post from November 13, 2013, I presented some of problems that
General db can solve.

5. The idea that Simple db and General db only work with the entities and relationships,
rather than as Relational model.

6. Identifiers of entities have been defined in my Simple Form. Anchor modeling uses
surrogates. Surrogates are identifiers of entities from my Simple Form. Here is plagiarizing
my idea of the identifier of an entity. This means that "anchor key" is a simple key, an
identifier, satisfies my Procedure A (Procedures A is below in the text).
However anchor-
surrogates can be applied to perhaps 2% of databases .

7. They plagiarized various types of time and "metadata". Note that I have introduced all
these concepts much earlier than the authors of "Anchor modeling" published the same
results. In addition, my papers were discussed in details in this user group, for a period of
several years. Note that in my papers do not exist undefined data sructures as "metadata".
In my papers was introduced and defined the concept of knowledge. This knowledge
better and more generally defines these terms than "metadata".

8. My theory about states is plagiarized from the mentioned authors.

9. They plagiarized my identifiers of states, that is, they have introduced my identifiers of
states as theirs. The identifiers of states are the most important part of my theory of states.

10. The authors of anchor modeling plagiarized the mapping between data models. This
plagiarism is done in such a way, that they used my theory of states of entities and
relationships in the mapping. Formally, this plagiarism is done by using identifiers of
states.

11. Authors of "Anchor modeling" plagiarized the idea, theory and technique of "history",
which was done in my paper. I'm the only one who gave a solution for the atomic data
structures. They also plagiarized my atomic structures.

Note that E. Codd tried to get a solution for atomic structures in his paper RM / T.
Note that Date & Darwen also tried to get a solution for the atomic structures, replacing
the name "atomic structures" with the following text "6NF".
Note that Codd and Date & Darwen were unsuccessful in this attempt to obtain solutions
for atomic structures.
Note that authors of "Anchor modeling" used in their paper surrogates, similar to Codd.
Note that authors of "Anchor modeling" put "6NF" in the title of their award-winning
paper.
=======================================================
All that the authors of "anchor modeling" are not plagiarized, which is their
original work, that is wrong. In my thread "some information about anchor modeling"
in my post on 1 April, 2013, I presented the errors in parts of "anchor modeling"
that are not plagiarized.
You can also find many other mistakes that are mentioned in these three threads,
which I mentioned at the beginning of this post. In my opinion, these are very
serious mistakes
============================================================
Here, in one particular whole, I will show how the authors of "Anchor modeling" have
done a scandalous plagiarism, of very important things, by using the name "anchor".

Plagiarism, which is hidden under the name of "Anchor"
======================================================
In my thread "The original version" at this user group, on May 26, 2010. I presented
the procedure, which I have named "Procedure A" :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
" (a)
The main part of solving "temporal", "historical" and other complex databases
consists of two sub-steps:
1. Constructing an identifier of an entity or relationship.
2. Connecting all changes of states of one entity (or relationship) to the identifier
of this entity (or relationship). "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
People have always held that a name denotes a certain entity, although this entity
has been changed many times. But the following problem has always existed: How an
entity which has changed to another entity is, in fact, the same entity. This problem
is solved in my paper "Some ideas about a new data model" from 2005 - 4 and 5 years
before the authors of anchor modeling published papers. In my paper I gave the
corresponding procedures, constructions and semantics for solving this problem. This
my solution, I was explaining intensively on this user group, for months. This
problem is solved theoretically and practicaly in my paper.

The mentioned solution is important also for others fields, for example for
philosophy, logic and semantics. (see for example: Ship of Theseus ). My point here
is that this is a plagiarism of a large scale, because the authors of the anchor
modeling are plagiarized procedure that solves a problem that is of great interest in
several scientific disciplines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor modeling uses the schema which is given in Procedure A; it uses both of the
following sub-steps:
1. constructing an identifier of an entity.
2. Connecting all changes of one entity to the identifier of this entity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be convincing in their plagiarism, authors of Anchor modeling have given a new
name to entity from my procedures A. This name is given according to following part
of the Procedures A: "Connecting all changes of one entity (or relationship) to the
identifier of this entity (or relationship). "

In this way they want to say, "Anchor Key" ties all changes from the corresponding
entity. Term anchor represent misunderstanding and it is nonsense. As I wrote, here
we have Procedure A.
--
In ProcedureA is possible precisely to work with states. For example, I can make a
binary structure, which has two columns, one column keeps identifiers of the
entities, the other one keeps the identifiers of states. In this binary structure I
have the main skeleton. To the remaining parts (to other binary structures) I can
access quickly by using the identifier of the corresponding state. In this way l can
access data by using any data element, not only by "key". For example, I can access
on the birth date and then by using the corresponding identifier of the state I can
access to main skeleton at the corresponding identifier of the entity.
Note that if I want, then I can add a column of knowledge to unary tables (relations)
in contrast to anchor modeling and RM / T.
There are many other combinations with the Procedure A, but it is a very broad topic.
--
The authors of "Anchor modeling" often use the name "immutable entity" and "immutable
key" for identifiers of entities from "Procedure A" and thereby hide this scandalous
plagiarism of Procedure A.

I do not visit other user group. Recently I visited a group for "Java" language and
there I have noticed a huge discussion on "immutable object" that is on my Procedure
A. One user asks to explain what it is immutable object, since it can not understand.
A large group of users explain it to him. Obviously "Java" has recently received
commands for "Immutable objects".
I must say that the user who does not understand, in fact, is the only one who well
understands this thing. Those who have explained, they do not understand. In fact,
"the immutable object" does not exist. Perhaps there is in philosophy and religion,
but in databases, this kind of object does not exist or they are very rare.
Here I want to show a little more complicated example of anatomy of plagiarism. The
plagiarism of the very important solutions and lack of understanding of plagiarists.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

1.
"6NF" is not a solution for history because it is the result of Functional dependency
and Join Dependencies. "6NF" does not "tolerate" redundancy. But redundancy is quite
good for history. General databases in contrast to Relational Model prefer
redundancy. This is what the authors of "6NF" do not understand. This fact does not
understand also the authors of "Anchor modeling", otherwise they would not use "6NF"
for history.

2.
==============================================================
I have repeatedly written that 6NF does not provide any new result. Authors of 6NF
does not give anything, what would a relvar R put in 6NF. There is no a procedure
that relvar R, can bring to 6NF.
==============================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So 6NF is just a synonym for "atomic data structures" or for "irreducible data
structures". Everyone knows that these atomic structures are very important, that is
not a problem. I mean we don't need to learn 6NF for that. The problem here is how to
get these atomic structures. This is what the authors of 6NF wisely kept quiet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This decomposition into atomic structures, it is a question of how to present an
entity by using its atomic structure. So it's a fundamental question - how is built
an entity. This is the essential difference between 6NF and other NFs, and therefore
6NF must have the exact procedure that a relvar effectively leads to "6NF".
In my solution I use a completely new database theory, I called it "General
databases".
General db solves the problem, Relational Model can not resolve this problem.
==============================================================
This more general view of the world, Codd was not realized in RM / T and Darwen &
Date in 6NF.
==============================================================
However the authors of the "Anchor modeling" base their work on surrogates, which are
similar to Codd's surrogates and on 6NF. Moreover they put 6NF in the title of their
work. Of course this is serious nonsense, because they display in the title their
misunderstanding of basic things in database theory.
==============================================================
General db theory resolves problem. Authors of "Anchor modeling" took my results and
ideas from my work and put into their data structures (see "Historized attributes and
ties"). "Anchor modeling" is based on the atomic structures that are plagiarized from
my work. These "their" atomic structures are the start position in the anchor
modeling.

**********The first time that somebody did "decomposition" into atomic structures****
In my paper, from 2005, was shown, how the decomposition into atomic structures
should be done. In my paper from 2008, was shown, how to make the decomposition on
atomic structures by using concepts.
*************************************************************************
We can notice that P. Chen and Anchor modeling did not use concepts although both
models are classified as the conceptual modeling. Moreover neither of the model does
not define the concept. Note that even the "Relational Model" does not define the
concepts. For example, E. Codd did not mention concepts, although he uses predicate
calculus.
==============================================================

3.
The decomposition into atomic structures has to be solved in the following way:
a) The whole db theory should be divided into two parts; Simple db and General db, that is
databases that maintain the current state the databases that maintain history.
b) make the structures that allow maintenance of history
c) make the atomic structure especially for Simple db and especially for General db.
d) Add a number of specific areas. I will mention just some of them: simple key, "metadata",
"temporal data", events.
The above points a), b), c), d), very clearly show that 6NF has nothing with these
above mentioned conditions.

4.

In my paper Simple Form, posted on May 15, 2006. on my website at www.dbdesign10.com
, section 4 and 5, I presented Simple Form:

=================================
4.1 Definition.
Relation schema R (K, A1, A2,...,An) is in Simple Form if R satisfies:
R (K, A1, A2, ...,An) = R1 (K, A1) join R2 (K, A2), join ... join Rn (K, An)
if and only if
1. Key K is simple
2. A1, A2,... , An are mutually independent.
==================================

In my opinion this form is better that 6NF because:
a) It determine conditions under which the decomposition into atomic structures can be done.
Note that 6NF does not give any conditions.
b) In case when attributes are mutually independent, 6NF can not do this decomposition.
c) Simple form completely describes identifiers of entities. This involve surrogates, locally
defined identifiers and international-standard identifiers.

5.
Since 6NF is fundamental thing in "Anchor Modeling", then the authors of "Anchor
modeling" must present the following items and that they did not present:
(i) the definition of identity of the entities in the relational model.
(ii) how they determine identity of the entities in the relational model.
(iii) what is an entity in the relational model

Note that the author of "Anchor modeling" did not explain how the "entity" and "time"
fit into the predicate calculus of the first order.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that first term in their paper is determined in "Def 1":
Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

Since they use 6NF in their model, then they should explain what are "identities" in
relational model.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I indicated at this point, the authors of "Anchor modeling" use some the most
general terms from philosophy and put them in a very precise area, that is in the
database theory.
===================================================
Here I will give an example in which I tried to give my definition of time. My data
model is defined as an event oriented model and states are defined via events, time
is defined via events, so that's the event model, and not temporal etc. My model uses
only two types of events. The following text is from my paper "Semantic databases and
semantic machines" , look at section 6, on my website http://www.dbdesign11.com :

" 6 Events
Our model is event oriented. In terms of changes of state of entities or
relationships, we define only two events: one that creates a new state of an entity
or relationship, and one that "closes" the current state of an entity (relationship).
Thus, these two events completely determine the state of every entity or
relationship.

6.1 Definition of Time
We can also apply this approach with two events to define time. For instance, we can
understand a "second" as a set of two events which occur on the entity "clock": the
event that creates a new second and the event that closes that second.

6.2 Duration of the State of an Entity
If we wish to measure the duration of a state of an entity in seconds, then we say
its duration is equal to the corresponding number of events on the entity clock. This
way, we use events, not units of time (seconds, minutes, etc) to measure duration.
Therefore, the duration of an entity's state is relative because it is always
measured by events defining the states of another entity. Depending on the events we
use to define states in the second entity, the duration of the state of the first
entity can be different. "
=========================================================

6.
The main data-structure in anchor modeling is "Historized attributes," Hatt (C, D,
T), where C is surrogate key, D is an attribute and T is time. (Also see "Anchor
modeling an agile modeling technique using the normal sixth form for structurally and
temporally evolving data", Def 5.
Let entity is a car and this entity has an appropriate surrogate. The attribute of
the car is red, and T is the time from when the red color is on car.
For example (785545528897, red, 2011-11-28)
We can see that this surrogate-key is very bad, because no one knows what is this
surrogate, except the man who created it. Note that if we put the VIN here instead of
the surrogate, then everything is OK.

Here K(C,T) is a key, that is surrogate key + time. If we assume that we have a time
interval, then this structure is ruined, because we get duplicate key. For example,
let time interval is determined with the following values: DateFrom=2011-11-28 and
DateTo=2014-11-30, then
for attribute red we have:

(785545528897, red, 2011-11-28)
(785545528897, 2014-11-30, 2011-11-28)

So their main structure Hatt (C, D, T) can not support time-intervals, because they
would get a duplicate key. To avoid the duplicate key authors of "Anchor modeling"
invented Hatt (C, D, T) structure. This structure has only one T.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, their date is made so that it has a double meaning:
(i) it means the beginning of the value of an attribute
(ii) at the same time the date means termination of the previous value of this
attribute.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6NF can not support time intervals in the main data structure Hatt.
To support 6NF authors of "Anchor modeling" wrote the main data-structure Hatt (C, D,
T) without "metadata", that is the main structure Hatt has only one "T". There is no
time interval. Of course this has nothing to do with real business applications.
----------------------------------
Note that the authors of "Anchor modeling"wrote in the paper: "Although important,
the metadata is not discussed further since its use does not differ from other
modeling techniques." (Look at page 2) However, this is not true because as I showed
above, this model can not solve the main data-structure Hatt with metadata.

Let's try to use the "metadata" on the way that the authors of "Anchor modeling"
just have described:
----------------------------------
In this goal, we will apply the following scheme:
(surrogate-key, attribute, DateFrom, DateTo, id-of-data-entry-person(or person's
password))

Then we can create the following example, where the entities are cars, one attribute
of the car is color:
(785545528897, red, 2011-11-28, 9999-99-99, 122 ) this means "red" is current color.
At this moment it seems "red" color will last up to max date.

(785545528897, red, 2011-11-28, 2014-11-30, 244) DateTo was entered for "red"
color. Note that we didn't do any of updates. We just have added these above tuples.

(785545528897, blue, 2014-11-30, 9999-99-99, 201) New color (blue) starts from
30.11.2014. The operator 201 was entered this data.
So in the above example, we created 3 tuples, that keep history of events. If we
apply update or delete, in one of the above tuples, then we do not have history. Note
that anchor modeling applies delete (I wrote about it), it means there is no
history.Note that here, there is duplicate key, again.

=======================================================
Conclusion
With these examples I showed that "Anchor modeling" can not work history in intervals
of time, because then they get a duplicate key and 6NF is inapplicable.

Of course, time intervals, often are required in real business applications. Time
intervals "Anchor modeling" can not solve, because it is artificially created to meet
6NF.

Please note that in my paper from 2005, in my example, I showed solution which has
one T that is plagiarized in Hatt(C, D, T). See example2 in my post from April 23,
2015, wich is in this thread.
=======================================================

7.
Once again, I will repeat, that authors of "anchor modeling" were working parallel
with two data models; with Relational model and with Anchor model at the same time.
After my public criticism of such a scandalous work, which won first prize at the
ER09, the authors were corrected their mistakes, so that they plagiarized again my
results, this time they plagiarized my theory of states and my theory of
identification. All this was happening publicly and globally, that is on the
Internet.
Mapping between the data model was resolved only in my papers. Please note that the
mapping between two data models, my theory of identification and my theory of states
are very important results in database theory.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In this thread I will write about the major steps in the design of a database. As I
wrote the authors of "Anchor modeling" claim that "In this paper we propose a
modeling technique for data werehousing, called anchor modeling, ..."
The main anchor modeling concept is introduced in the following two definitions (look
at page 3):

Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as
identities.
Def 2 (Anchor). An anchor A (C) is atable with one column. The domain of C is ID. The
domain of C is ID. The primary key for A is C.
--
Note that the term "Identities" is not defined. Note that this term is undefined in
philosophy also. I want to emphasize that they initially start from the undefined
term.

I will try in this post, present a real database design. Note that I am using the
following terms: "identification" and identifier. In my opinion this is a big
difference from "identities".

1. Step
I adopt the following Godel view of the world: “By the theory of simple types I mean
the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation,
the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of
individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc...
(Kurt Gödel 1944)“
In relation to this Godel's view I would like to say the following: I found this
Godel's text about 2-3 years ago. Until then, I used the Entity / Relationship Model,
which is applied in Peter Chen's data model. Obviously this Godel's definition, has a
priority of ideas. I also believe that many philosophers and mathematicians have
worked on such a view of the world before Godel and I believe that some of them made
significant contributions to this theory.
The term "object of thought" is important here, and it seems to me that in this small
text, we can see a strong mindset of K. Godel. In my paper from year 2008, I
introduced the concepts of m-attributes, m-entities, m-relationships and m-m-states,
with the prefix "m". Prefix "m" I have used, because these objects are in memory.
These my terms, only in part are "objects of thought". I also do not believe in the
term "type". In my paper „Semantic databases and semantic machines“ (at
http://www.dbdesign11.com) In section 1, I defined abstract objects. In section 2, I
defined facts. Facts represent elementary (or atomic) thoughts that correspond to
atomic data structures. In section 3, I introduced factual sentences. Factual
sentences express facts. Section 4 is about awareness.

Now I will not explain these ideas in detail, because it is a very broad topic, I'll
just mention some of my thoughts and solutions related to them.
I'm building facts from the atomic structures, facts are based on the atomic
structures. Here you can see immediately a great advantage of atomic structures that
are obtained by applying my theory about the states. If you try to use the "normal
form" for an entity, then you should take all normal forms, to reach 6NF for which
there is no procedure and which does not operate in a number of cases, which I
described in this thread. One more thing is important here. If you want to apply
"normal forms", then you must have the wrong data-structute, because "normal forms"
repair only those data-structures that are wrong. In order to formalize the work with
atomic structures, we need a tool that directly constructs these atomic structures.
So, the basic idea here, related to facts, is to try to formalize work with thoughts.
I think this is a fine place to quote G. Frege: „I am not here in the happy position
of a mineralogist who shows his audience a rock-crystal: I cannot put a thought in
the hands of my readers with the request that they should examine it from all sides.
Something in itself not perceptible by sense, the thought is presented to the reader
– and I must be content with that – wrapped up in a perceptible linguistic form. The
pictorial aspect of language presents difficulties. The sensible always breaks in and
makes expressions pictorial and so improper. So one fights against language, and I am
compelled to occupy myself with language although it is not my proper concern here. I
hope I have succeeded in making clear to my readers what I want to call 'thought'
...“

So, in fact, Frege studied thoughts. He found a tool with which it is able to work
with the thoughts. This tool is language. Note that G. Frege discovered a major part
in propositional logic. He completely discovered predicate calculus and Semantics,
starting from scratch, 120 years ago.

It seems to me that this Frege's thinking has a lot to do with the following Godel's
„objects of thought“ and „the symbolic expressions“ in the above-mentioned sentence:
„I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
interpretation, the symbolic expressions).“ So, in fact, this is about entities(or
individuals in Godel notation)

2. Step
We identify entities by using Leibniz's Law of the identity of indiscernibles (the
indiscernibility of identicals)
Another important thing here is the following: Leibniz's Law allows that the
identification of the object is a mathematical discipline. So Leibniz's Law is the
mathematical tool.

Things become accurate because we realize Leibniz's Law in ERM. So we can only
identify entities and relationships. Many system-analysts think that each entity is
determined by its attributes, ie that it is determined with its intrinsic attributes.
This is not true.
I've divided Leibniz's Law in two laws. Leibniz's Law that uses intrinsic attributes
and General Law which uses intrinsic + entrinsic attributes (see may paper „Semantic
databases and semantic machines“ section 5.5 i 5.6. This division is realized within
the Entity / Relationship model about the world.
I will repeat once again the following example, because it is important in this part
of the theory. It argues against the claim that intrinsic attribtes determine the
corresponding entity.

Example1: Honda dealer received 200 new Honda Civic cars, which all have the same

attributes. Imagine now that someone has wiped out all the VIN numbers from these
Honda Civic. Then we get 200 cars that have all the attributes the same. If in this
situation we apply surrogates, then we will get a disaster. If we keep the industry-
standard identifiers, then we do not need surrogates. Note that this problem with a
surrogate key, there is for all industrial products of this type.

So, we have to say on which basis we give the VIN to each of these cars. We affirm
the uniqueness of an entity by using the General Law. Note that in this case when we
apply the General Law, then the newly introduced identifier of the entity becomes
intrinsic attribute of the corresponding entity.

3. Step
This step is about identification.
Change of identity is allowed in some countries. Note that in "anchor modeling" is
banned changes in the identities of entities.

1.
In my model, identification is defined recursively. In my first paper from 2005, I am
able to write all the keys in the form of simple identifiers (not composed). I have
identifiers of entities, relattionships and states. Look at my website
http://www.dbdesign10.com , section 1 and 2.
In section 4 was introduced Simple Form. This form gives the conditions for
decomposition of data structures in the atomic structures, for db that maintain
current states. In this case, the binary structure consists of the simple key and one
attribute. Simple Form fully describes the identifiers of entities, ie surrogate
keys, locally defined keys and internationally defined key. To my knowledge, this is
the first work that fully describes the surrogate keys, locally defined keys and
internationally defined keys, and the conditions under which they may be designed as
a simple keys.

2.
In section 1 my paper in 2005, is part of the text, which I did mention several
times. In this text, there are several important things for my data model. Here is
the text:

„We determine the Conceptual Model so that every entity and every relationship has
only one attribute, all of whose values are distinct. So this attribute doesn’t have
two of the same values. We will call this attribute the Identifier of the state of an
entity or relationship. We will denote this attribute by the symbolAck. All other
attributes can have values which are the same for some different members of an entity
set or a relationship set. Besides Ack, every entity has an attribute which is the
Identifier of the entity or can provide identification of the entity. This identifier
has one value for all the states of one entity or relationship...“

In this article I would like to analyze the following sentence: "or can provide
identification of the entity." Thus, anything that can provide identification of an
entity, "directly" or "indirectly". Let's call this rule "Identification OfEntity".
To highlight the importance of this rule I will mention now three important examples
from practice that are "IdentificationOfEntity" realized "indirectly".

(i) Surrogate key. Here, using "surrogate key" we identify the corresponding
attributes that are in the database (ie in the memory). Based on these m-attributes,
we find the corresponding real world attributes on the corresponding real world
object.
(ii) Application of the General Leibniz's Law. Here I use that "intrinsic +
extrinsic" properties "can provide identification of the entity".
(iii) I am most interested in this case. In my opinion, the human memory is not
operating as a db memory, that is, it does not use keys. For example, someone can
recall of certain person, based on one date. For example, someone notices a date and
he recall himself that on that date, certain person died. Thus, in the this example,
we identify an entity based on the date (but not by using a key). In my post on 5
May, 2015, in this thread, I presented the example, where I showed how to find a
person if we know his date of birth. This is realized by using the good organization
of the data, ie by using the atomic data structures.

In the above mentioned article, there is another important sentence: „This
identifier has one value for all the states of one entity or relationship...“ I named
it as „Procedure A“. I wrote about it in my thread „The original version“ in my post
from 26. May, 2010. and in that post, I've marked it as (a).
This very important part of the design of the General databases for the first time
solves a set of important things is plagiarized from the authors of "Anchor
Modeling" and named it anchor and immutable key. Now, there are names such as the
"immutable objects", which is an example of not understanding the essence, at the
level of db design. In this thread, I wrote that in the theory of object-oriented
languages, began to appear the term "immutable key" and that this term is wrong term.
In my thread "some information about anchor modeling," in my post from 18 July,
2012, I wrote that the surrogate key is a weak point in the oop and oo db. I wrote
that these problems in OOP and OODB can be solved just by using the mentioned
"procedure (a)."

3.
In my paper from 2008, "Database design and data model founded on the concept and
knowledge constructs", in section 3, I have defined important constraint on the
subject, with the following title:
Limitation of Interpretation. Our assumption related to real world objects is that
we can recognize or match those objects for which we have perceptual, inferential or
rational abilities.
Therefore, I have defined that attributes are identifiers. We can identify attributes
by using our capacity in terms of the above-introduced "Limitation of
Interpretation".

Attributes are determined by the formula (3.3.3), see my paper from 2008. So, these
attributes are determined with the subject's ability to identify these attributes.
Formula (3.3.3) provides a link between the conceptual thinking and identification.
In my opinion it is not enough just to work with the concepts. With data-structures,
in addition to formula (3.3.3), general knowledge is also associated.
Associated knowledge about an attribute, can be as much as it Project leader decides.
Knowledge in my data model is determined by factual sentences. Facts and factual
sentences I defined in section 2 and 3 in my paper „Semantic databases and semantic
machines“.

4.
All other structures that are not attributes, which are complex, we construct in the
following way:
(i) Each complex structure is constructed from previous simpler structures.
(ii) The identifier of the complex structures we build using the identifiers of the
previous structures.
For example:
The entities are built from attributes, by using Leibniz's Law (or General Law). The
construction of the identifier of entity we build using attributes of this entity.
Note that attributes are atomic identifiers in my data model.
Identifiers of relationships are built from identifiers of entities participating in
relationships. Identifiers of states are constructed by using identifiers of entities
and by using general knowledge that is related to the corresponding entity.
Thus, for the attributes in my db design, there are two important structures
a) associated general knowledge that is related to the corresponding attribute
b) formula that is designated with (3.3.3)
In addition to the attributes, I also apply the formula (3.3.3) to the m-entities, m-
relationships, and m-states. Procedures for identification of relationships and
states are similar. So, constructions of complex objects are derived (recursively)
from simpler objects. For example identifiers of states are determined by identifiers
of the corresponding entities and by general knowledge related to the corresponding
entity.
As stated above, the identifiers for attributes are not derived. Attributes are
identifiers. They are given (they depend on subject's abilities).

I have already explained that the identifiers of entities are related to the
subject's operations with a memory; how to store an identifier of m-entity into a
memory and how to recall it from the memory. When we talk about thoughts, I explained
that surrogates are related to a subject and one memory (the memory where surrogates
and the corresponding m-attributes are stored).
I also explained that the industry-standard identifiers can be used to explain how
thoughts and semantic content are conveyed between two (or more) subjects that is to
say between two (or more) memories.

4. Step

1.
Now I will briefly describe the history of my work. When I talk about "General
databases", then I will mention that I solve "decomposition" on the atomic structures
and introduced the theory of states of entities and relationships.
In April 2006 I introduced Simple Form, for Simple databases, ie databases that
maintain current state. General and Simple Form enable the decomposition of
database's structures into atomic structures.

My paper "Database design and data model founded on the concept and knowledge
constructs" I submitted on 21 August 2008. I submitted my paper in „Journal of
Computing and Information Technology“ (from Croatia). Croatia is a country of my
origin.

Much time has passed since I submitted my paper without any information about whether
the paper had been accepted or rejected. I realized that the paper could not be
published even after a year, I contacted the Editor-in-Chief, Sven Lonacaric and
informed him I would publish the paper on my website, and in the case that it was
accepted, I would give all the rights to his journal. I quickly received a message
from D. Mladenic (from Slovenia ), the Associate Editor, that my paper was rejected.

I posted my paper on my website and on user group comp.dabases.theory on 7 March
2009.
I was aware that my work is good, I carefully examined D. Mladenic reviews, in a few
days. I stayed really astonished with her reviews. I have found that she does not
know elementary things in databases. Then I found that S. Loncaric did not know
databases, his field is "imiging". D. Mladinić also is not a professional for
databases, her specialty is "machine learning". I was put in a position to correct my
work; It was requested of me. I refused to do it, because I am sure that my paper is
correct. My paper, I presented on my website, exactly as it was submitted to the
Croatian journal. I also put reviews of D. Mladinić on Web, because this work is
important, and I spent years on this work. This review can be found in my thread "The
original version," in my post from 30th January, 2011.

Then I accidentally discovered that Anchor Modeling plagiarized my work. I informed
about it S. Loncaric, he did not respond. After a long correspondence between me, S.
Loncaric and D. Mladenic, it took one year, I realized that they were actually
banned the printing of my paper.
By the way in the Croatian magazine "Journal of Computing and Information Technology"
are not a world famous influential names. From well-known names, there is only Yuri
Gurevich. (as far as I know this area). Gurevich is famous mathematician and has
published papers with world famous mathematicians. Here's a web address of the
Croatian journal's http://cit.srce.unizg.hr/index.php/CIT/about/editorialTeam

When I saw that Microsoft started making software for what I published in 2005, when
I saw the "Anchor modeling" plagiarism of my work, when I saw that in the 2010 Tine
Borovnik from the University of Ljubljana in his master's thesis analyzes "Anchor
Modeling" (By the way Dunja Mladenic is from Ljubljana), then the question was, what
should I do now?
On May 26, 2010 I decided to start thread "The original version", which will present
the truth about "Anchor Modeling". Now I see that it was the only chance to save my
work to some extent. Otherwise, there would be only about "Anchor modeling", my work
would be dead.

In the fall of 2010, in just a few months the authors of "Anchor modeling" released a
number of new papers. Their main work was published in the journal Data & Knowledge
Engineering, Editor Peter Chen. In this paper, the authors of "Anchor modeling"
corrected the mistakes that I presented in the thread "The original version". This
correction was done so as this time they have plagiarized my theory about states.
Some of papers, they have published on September 15, 2010 on their website. All these
papers are connected and the main thing in this work is mapping between data models.

2.
The most important part of my design is "decomposition on atomic structures" and the
theory of the states of entities and relationships. So in my data model design is
about states of entities and relationships, not about the entities and
relationships. In fact these states are decomposed into atomic structures.

3.
In the second part of this paper I introduced the databases that store programs.
Specifically these databases keep states of programs. One important idea here is that
the processes and events can be realized with the execution of a program, or one
state of the program. Of course, we can start a collection programs and then
formally speaking we have a history of future that is implemented from the database
that keeps the states of the programs and "knows" to implement a set of future
events. In my post of April 18, 2015 I called this database "small world" that runs
the following two important things:

(i) the world can maintain its past, present and future.
(ii) the main control part of the world is a collection of information, i.e. data

from appropriate database.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These databases that keep programs, I'll start a new thread short, with maybe three
posts. For this current thread I have one more post.

I think it would be useful for this user group that someone start a thread on
intellectual properties, plagiarism, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

In this thread I paid special attention to surrogate keys and 6NF. The
reason is that the authors of Anchor modeling presented surrogates and 6NF
as something special in their work. Here in one place I will briefly
presented part of plagiarism and serious errors in Anchor modeling. These
are only the consequences related to anchor-surrogate keys.

1.
The surrogate key are done in detail in my work in a much broader context
than the Anchor Modeling (RM / T) did. In the my work the surrogate keys are
presented in the context of the theory of identification. In the my papers
are given the conditions under which we can construct surrogates. It was
introduced Simple Form. In the Anchor modeling (and RM / T) are not
presented conditions for the construction of surrogates.
In the my writings on this user group, it was pointed out that surrogate
keys can be applied to a small number of insignificant cases. Therefore, it
makes no sense to build a data model that is based on surrogates.
Authors of "Anchor modeling" overlooked that today in almost all databases,
keys were introduced as an international-standard keys or as locally defined
keys. These keys are fundamentally different from the anchor-surrogates.
Most importantly, these keys are not surrogates, they are real.

It should be noted that Codd's surrogate keys does not fall within the
domain of science. In the database theory, especially in database design
there are no "invisible" keys.

2.
Anchor modeling is incorrect. This was demonstrated in my threads, "the
original version," some information about anchor modeling "and in this
thread. I will mention in this post only those errors in the "Anchor
modeling" that are related to the "surrogate key".
So in this post I put earlier presented examples of serious errors of Anchor
Modeling, which are related to the anchor-surrogate keys. The reason is that
these examples are located at various sites, as I have in recent years
discussed the "Anchor Modeling".
Anchor Modeling cannot maintain incorrect data. We know that every serious
company has much wrongly-entered data, and that there are often whole
departments which correct this data.

Example 1.
In Anchor Modeling, the history of attributes is maintained in the structure
"Historized Attribute", which had the schema Hatt(C,D,T), where C represents
ID, D represents an attribute, T represents time, and (C,T) is the primary
key.
If the value D is wrong, then it is impossible to enter a correct value,
because it will generate a duplicate key. So this structure can't maintain
history in this important case. In Anchor Modeling, they "must" delete wrong
data, otherwise they will have duplicate key. If a company has taken legal
action on the basis of wrongly entered data (for instance, if a company sues
a client based on wrong data) then the company must save the history, that
is, it must save the incorrect and the later corrected incorrect data.

Example2
If incorrect data is entered in T, then the situation is even worse because
then two rows are wrong. If we were to enter corrected data, then we would
have to have four rows for one attribute change. In this example, things can
get even more complicated, ( involved
relationships, recurring mistakes upon repairing, etc.)

Example3
Suppose that the schools purchased Anchor Modeling software because it
maintains history. Suppose that the teacher Smith gave grade A to student
John. By using a data entry screen, Smith entered the grade A in the
corresponding database. He deliberately made a mistake when entering a grade
A. John's realistic knowledge corresponds in fact to the grade D. After two
months, John was admitted to a good college, thanks to grade A. Smith then
declared that the grade A is a mistake and delete it, since the authors of
Anchor Modeling allow the deletion of the wrong data. So everybody is OK.
John didn't make a mistake; John's college even does not know what is
happened with his diploma. Smith made mistake and fixed it. The authors of
Anchor modeling are responsible in this case, because they claim that their
solution maintain the history, although it is not correct. Even more they
obviously do not understand what the history is. Otherwise, if they
understand the history, then they will not allow the delete of data.
We note that history works well with the insert operation. However, if one
is allowed to insert and delete, then it means that the update operation is
also allowed. So Anchor modeling implicitly introduced classical db. What is
bad here, it is that the authors of Anchor modeling are not aware of it.
This example is of extreme importance. It talks about the online (or
Internet) databases. These databases can not afford department for data
entry and subsequent troubleshooting. On-line db must respond immediately.
So these databases operate much like "living systems", that is, must respond
immediately.

Example4
In historized Attributes Hatt(C,D,T), the attribute T is wrongly designed. T
is the time when the value of a property is no longer valid and also the
time that a new value of the property becomes valid. However, this is
incorrect. For instance, let us consider the property: the color of a car. A
car can be sent to the mechanic to be fixed. The old color can be removed
right away and the company can enter this into a database. After a serious
of repair jobs, the new
color can be painted on 10 days after the previous color was removed.
This data may be entered into the database 12 days after the car has been in
the shop. Therefore, one of the design foundations in Anchor Modeling is
flawed.

Example5
It may happen that a business decision of the company is to enter only every
third change of a certain attribute. In this case, the entire construction
of Hatt (C, D, T) is broken.

Conclusion
=====================
Here are presented examples that show serious errors at the level db design
of award-winnig paper on ER09. Here are given examples only relating to
surrogate keys. For a serious analysis of identifiers of entities, including
surrogates, I think that it can be based on my post from 19th May, 2015 in
this thread.

Vladimir Odrljin

[vldm10]

> Example1:
> 313 blue 2008-08-20
> 313 red 2009-11-09
> ...
>

I made a mistake in the text above.
Instead of "red" should be "black"

[vldm10]

With this post I will finish this thread. Of course, if someone wishes to
comment or criticize my arguments in this thread, he is welcome. This is the
user group for the free expression of thinking in relation to the theory of
databases.
In this post I will present serious errors and plagiarism that are related
to "sixth normal form" at the level of db design in award-winning paper on
ER09.
I will show, also that "decomposition" into atomic structures can not be
done by using "6NF".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In "Anchor Modeling" many important cases have been omitted. Here are some
examples:

1. "Metadata"
Basic data-structure in "Anchor Modeling" is Hatt (C, D, T). But this
structure is presented with only one "metadata", it is "T". Note that
"metadata" often have 6, 7 members. The regular four members are "(DateFrom,
DateTo)" for the real world date, and "(DateFrom, DateTo)" for the "database
date".
In my posts from 23 April and from 11 May in this thread, I showed that
"Anchor
Modeling" can not correctly work time intervals, and that is why they have
only one "T" in the Hatt (C, D, T).
Thus, the structure Hatt (C, D, T) is tuned according to "6NF". Of course,
this kind of technique does not belong to a scientific domain.

2. Relationships
Relationships in "Anchor Modeling" do not have attributes, although P. Chen
presented relationships with attributes. It is obvious that "6NF" does not
work for relationships that have "metadata". Note that there are
relationships between relationships.

======================================================
In this thread is presented that "6NF" can not be used for general
databases, and therefore neither for "maintenance history". 6NF does not
work well in the "Anchor Modeling" for the following relationship's cases:
a) 6NF does not work well with relationships in Anchor Modeling.
b) 6NF does not work well with relationships with "metadata" in Anchor
Modeling.
c) 6NF does not work good in Anchor Modeling with history of intreval's
data.

Note that these are the most difficult cases in the database theory.
======================================================

3. Decomposition into atomic structures
This "decomposition" into atomic structures can not be done by using "6NF".
Let me mention just a few reasons:
(i) General db theory is opposite from existing "RM" (RM is a short cut for
Relational Model). "6NF" is based on"RM". In "RM" there is no redundancy,
General db keeps redundancy.
(ii) Authors of "6NF" use delete and update operations. General db does not
use these operations
(iii) Current "RM" is not entirely based on G. Frege's theory.
(iv) "6NF" does not define a procedure, which leads relations into "6NF".

Now the following text "using sixth normal form" which the authors of
"Anchor Modeling" put in the title of their work, does not make sense.

======================================================
So far, the decomposition into atomic structures is done, in only one way.
This was done by using my theory about states. It has been published in 2005
year on my website and presented on this user group.
======================================================

In their paper "Analysis of normal forms for anchor-tables" authors of
"Anchor Modeling" prove that their main structure Hatt (C, D, T) is in "6NF"
???
Here C is the anchor-surrogate key, D is an attribute, and T is time. Note
that here the authors of "Anchor Modeling" have only one "metadata," it is
time "T".
Note that here the issue is not "6NF" at all. The point is the introduction
of a completely new type of relations - it is a relation that maintain
history. Such kind of relations do not exist in "RM". In 2005, I defined the
new General db theory. Hatt (C, D, T) is the plagiarism of the main ideas of
my General db theory. As I showed in this thread, "6NF" does not solve
history. "6NF" is just a cover for this plagiarism.

In my thread "The original version", in August 2010, I started writing that
that authors of "Anchor Modeling" are working in "Anchor model" and that
"6NF" is in "RM". I also wrote that the problem of mapping between data
models is solved only in my paper and in my data model.

The authors of "Anchor Modeling", in September 2010, announced on their
private website, a series of papers in which they corrected this huge
mistake. In November 2010, their second work was presented in DKE, editor
Peter Chen. In this paper they plagiarized the main part of my data model -
that's the theory about states. In this way, they corrected the mistakes of
the mapping between two data models, proclaim themselves as the authors of
the solution for mapping between data models.

Most importantly they plagiarized my theory about the states. In my post of
March 17, 2015 in this thread, I published the first time some of the
solutions in Logic, semantics, model theory and some other areas, which in
my opinion can be directly solved by applying my theory of states of objects
and relationships.

Vladimir Odrljin