295 views

Skip to first unread message

Dec 23, 2019, 8:50:24 AM12/23/19

to

In my post dated December 9, 2019, in thread „The relational model is a wrong

theory“, I wrote the following facts:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can also see two identifiers:

1. The Identifier of an entity.

2. The identifier of the state of an entity.

Note that my identifier of state is actually a surrogate key. But when I link it to

the corresponding identifier of the entity, then it is a very strong and complete

link. So I have always two identifiers: the identifier of the entity and the

identifier of an state of the entity.

--

Identifiers of entities they are in database and they are in the real world also.

Because they exist in databases and in the real world, the identifiers of entities

are not surrogates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will explain how authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my paper:

They plagiarized my identifier of an entity and they link all changes to their key.

This is exactly what I did. In fact I did more. I associate all changes related to

this entity to the identifier of the entity which is in the database, more precisely I associate all these changes to some memory. But I have also the identifier of

the entity in the real world. For example I have a small book, which I call

„passport“ and the identifier of the entity is in the passport.

The authors od "anchor modeling" call their key - „anchor key“.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This „anchor key“ is a surrogate key which is very bad database solution.

My identifier of an entity is in the real world and in the database. So my

identifier of an entity is:

1. The identifier of the entity in the real world.

2. The identifier of an entity is in the database.

3. This my identifier is not surrogate key.

4. My Identifier of the entity can work in data warehouse much better then an anchor.

5. „Anchor key“ is a special case of my key. If you delete my key from the real world

and keep only my key in database, you will have „anchor key“.

That is one reason why my solution to this problem is much more general than "anchor

modeling".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means that "anchor modeling" is only one case, that is, a special case from my

general solution. It also means that the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my

main ideas, which were presented to this group and discussed in detail, five years

before the authors of "anchor modeling" presented their plagiarism.

My second identifier (that is the identifier of an state of an entity) was deleted by

authors of "anchor modeling". However they left all changes of an entity and bound

them to "anchor", which is a copy of my solution.

In my opinion, this is one of the greatest plagiarism in history.

----------------------------------------

What are we talking about here?

----------------------------------------

This is a problem known from ancient Greece and is known as the Ship of Theseus.

According to Wikipedia: „In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of

its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The concept is one of

the oldest in Western philosophy, having been discussed by the likes of Heraclitus

and Plato by ca. 500-400 BC and later by Aristotle ."

Later, many philosophers discussed and tried to solve this problem. For example,

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Noam Chomsky.

We who work with databases may set the following question: How does a person (or an

entity) who has changed some attributes of his or her identity, for us, remain the

same person?

I solved this problem as an effective procedure with the help of my two identifiers

and with the help of some other mentioned new solutions. I also found a procedure

that binds all changes to an identifier of entity and this is exactly what the

authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized for the process of changes and connecting

these changes to "anchor").

This my solution to the problem, which has not been solved for 2500 years, has been

gradually plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling". Then they plagiarized my

scientific results and declared it as their scientific results.

The problem mentioned above, has not been solved for 2500 years. I solved this

problem long before 2005, but presented it to this user group in 2005. The authors of

"anchor modeling" gradually plagiarized my scientific papers. In December 2009, the

authors of "anchor modeling" published their first work. The authors of "anchor

modeling" published their second paper in DKE in December 2010. After my critique of

errors and plagiarism of the authors of "anchor modeling" on this user group, they

published their second paper, in which they plagiarized the most significant of my

results. I have presented in this thread some of these plagiarism.

Following my public criticisms of plagiarism published in the first paper of "anchor

modeling", presented on this user group, the authors of "anchor modeling" published

their second paper in the journal DKE, Editor-in-Chief Peter Chen.

This time, they introduce "identifiers" on the most complex concept, that is the

identifier of the relationship. You can see this in Definition 16 in their paper

published in DKE.

Of course, these complex identifies are solved in my papers from 2005.

In their second paper, section 4.5, the authors of "anchor modeling" „introduce“

"states".

Let me note, that this nonchalant introduction to these basic concepts(identifiers

and states) presented by authors of "anchor modeling" is one of the greatest

plagiarism in history.

Notice that states and identifiers are fundamental concepts for the beginnings of a

completely new database theory. These two concepts significantly influence the

fundamental things in Logic, Semantics, Meaning, and Theory of Thoughts. For example:

1. I am not speaking about Truth and Meaning.

2. I am speaking about truth and meaning in the past, in the present and in the

future and what is the most important my database can do it very precisely.

I also want to present that authors of "anchor modeling" gradually and carefully

introduce plagiarism, so this is hard to notice this plagiarism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Brazil, the first paper from "anchor modeling" received the first prize, the

honorary president of the congress was Peter Chen.

The second paper (that is, the repair of the first, award-winning paper) was

published in the scientific journal DKE, where Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that I have been explaining my papers in detail on this user group since

2005.

Vladimir Odrljin

theory“, I wrote the following facts:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can also see two identifiers:

1. The Identifier of an entity.

2. The identifier of the state of an entity.

Note that my identifier of state is actually a surrogate key. But when I link it to

the corresponding identifier of the entity, then it is a very strong and complete

link. So I have always two identifiers: the identifier of the entity and the

identifier of an state of the entity.

--

Identifiers of entities they are in database and they are in the real world also.

Because they exist in databases and in the real world, the identifiers of entities

are not surrogates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will explain how authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my paper:

They plagiarized my identifier of an entity and they link all changes to their key.

This is exactly what I did. In fact I did more. I associate all changes related to

this entity to the identifier of the entity which is in the database, more precisely I associate all these changes to some memory. But I have also the identifier of

the entity in the real world. For example I have a small book, which I call

„passport“ and the identifier of the entity is in the passport.

The authors od "anchor modeling" call their key - „anchor key“.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This „anchor key“ is a surrogate key which is very bad database solution.

My identifier of an entity is in the real world and in the database. So my

identifier of an entity is:

1. The identifier of the entity in the real world.

2. The identifier of an entity is in the database.

3. This my identifier is not surrogate key.

4. My Identifier of the entity can work in data warehouse much better then an anchor.

5. „Anchor key“ is a special case of my key. If you delete my key from the real world

and keep only my key in database, you will have „anchor key“.

That is one reason why my solution to this problem is much more general than "anchor

modeling".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means that "anchor modeling" is only one case, that is, a special case from my

general solution. It also means that the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my

main ideas, which were presented to this group and discussed in detail, five years

before the authors of "anchor modeling" presented their plagiarism.

My second identifier (that is the identifier of an state of an entity) was deleted by

authors of "anchor modeling". However they left all changes of an entity and bound

them to "anchor", which is a copy of my solution.

In my opinion, this is one of the greatest plagiarism in history.

----------------------------------------

What are we talking about here?

----------------------------------------

This is a problem known from ancient Greece and is known as the Ship of Theseus.

According to Wikipedia: „In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of

its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The concept is one of

the oldest in Western philosophy, having been discussed by the likes of Heraclitus

and Plato by ca. 500-400 BC and later by Aristotle ."

Later, many philosophers discussed and tried to solve this problem. For example,

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Noam Chomsky.

We who work with databases may set the following question: How does a person (or an

entity) who has changed some attributes of his or her identity, for us, remain the

same person?

I solved this problem as an effective procedure with the help of my two identifiers

and with the help of some other mentioned new solutions. I also found a procedure

that binds all changes to an identifier of entity and this is exactly what the

authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized for the process of changes and connecting

these changes to "anchor").

This my solution to the problem, which has not been solved for 2500 years, has been

gradually plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling". Then they plagiarized my

scientific results and declared it as their scientific results.

The problem mentioned above, has not been solved for 2500 years. I solved this

problem long before 2005, but presented it to this user group in 2005. The authors of

"anchor modeling" gradually plagiarized my scientific papers. In December 2009, the

authors of "anchor modeling" published their first work. The authors of "anchor

modeling" published their second paper in DKE in December 2010. After my critique of

errors and plagiarism of the authors of "anchor modeling" on this user group, they

published their second paper, in which they plagiarized the most significant of my

results. I have presented in this thread some of these plagiarism.

Following my public criticisms of plagiarism published in the first paper of "anchor

modeling", presented on this user group, the authors of "anchor modeling" published

their second paper in the journal DKE, Editor-in-Chief Peter Chen.

This time, they introduce "identifiers" on the most complex concept, that is the

identifier of the relationship. You can see this in Definition 16 in their paper

published in DKE.

Of course, these complex identifies are solved in my papers from 2005.

In their second paper, section 4.5, the authors of "anchor modeling" „introduce“

"states".

Let me note, that this nonchalant introduction to these basic concepts(identifiers

and states) presented by authors of "anchor modeling" is one of the greatest

plagiarism in history.

Notice that states and identifiers are fundamental concepts for the beginnings of a

completely new database theory. These two concepts significantly influence the

fundamental things in Logic, Semantics, Meaning, and Theory of Thoughts. For example:

1. I am not speaking about Truth and Meaning.

2. I am speaking about truth and meaning in the past, in the present and in the

future and what is the most important my database can do it very precisely.

I also want to present that authors of "anchor modeling" gradually and carefully

introduce plagiarism, so this is hard to notice this plagiarism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Brazil, the first paper from "anchor modeling" received the first prize, the

honorary president of the congress was Peter Chen.

The second paper (that is, the repair of the first, award-winning paper) was

published in the scientific journal DKE, where Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that I have been explaining my papers in detail on this user group since

2005.

Vladimir Odrljin

Dec 27, 2019, 11:47:59 AM12/27/19

to

I have shown by example, on this user group, that "Anchor modeling" can be used for crime. This means "Anchor modeling" has no "History" and in big number cases allows crime.

This case shows that the authors of "Anchor modeling" do not understand database theories and this is another case for suspecting that their paper is plagiarism.

You can see this crime in my example posted on this user group under the heading: "Anchor Modeling Has No History at All" posted on August 7, 2018.

I also think that the professional public should be informed that "Anchor Modeling" is wrong. Perhaps Mr. Peter Chen could do this because he was the Honorary President ER 2009 in Brazil, where the first paper from "anchor modeling" received the first prize.

The second paper about „anchor modeling“ (that is, the repair of the first, award-winning paper) was published in the scientific journal DKE, where Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.

Vladimir Ordljin

Jan 3, 2020, 8:09:16 PM1/3/20

to

Dana ponedjeljak, 23. prosinca 2019. u 14:50:24 UTC+1, korisnik vldm10 napisao je:

On September 17, 2005 I posted on my website www.dbdesign10.com my first paper

called: Some ideas about a new Data Model.

I also presented my paper on this user group on September 23, 2005. I called this

thread "Database design, Keys and some other things".

To my surprise, this topic aroused great interest and much discussion. My

answering the questions asked in this user group became my second job and it took

me a lot of my time in the next 10 years to answer on these questions. My main

problem was my poor knowledge of English.

At the time, the discussion in this group was being translated into more than 10

languages - a number that I noticed by chance, probably that number was higher. I

want to say that this topic was known to a large number of expert people. The

number of professional people who saw my work was much higher than several editors

of professional journals.

I would like to point out that the following things were solved for the first time

in my papers:

1.

In my work, the theory about the identification of entities, identification of

relationships between entities, and a number of details related to this field were

introduced and solved for the first time.

2.

For the first time a solution was given for the theory of changes of objects and

changes of their relationships. This theory is at the level of Logic, Semantics,

Meaning, and Theory of Thought.

3.

For the first time, "Atomic Structures" are solved for thoughts, concepts-objects,

predicates, and propositions.

This means that for the first time it is determined how exactly thoughts,

concepts-objects, predicates, and propositions are constructed.

4.

Each of my data structures has the identifier of a state of an entity and does not

use an idea of "key".

5.

In terms of atomic data structures, my model has only two events with atomic data:

(i) An event when an atomic structure receives a new value (attribute);

(ii) An event when an atomic structure ceases to have some value (attribute),

which it had until then;

(iii) We note in our database the previously mentioned two events on the atomic

structure, with help of other events that we call time.

Thus, the entire database has only these two events that are related to the

data.

These, the aforementioned beginnings of the five new theories were plagiarized by

the authors of "Anchor Modeling", from my papers.

Example:

The authors of "Anchor Modeling" put in the title of their work "6NF". This title

is as follows::

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for

Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no one "An Agile Modeling Technique" that uses "6NF" because "6NF" is

just a name.

To give a name to something is not in the field of science. It's not some

procedure or an algorithm or some relevant theory or proof.

It is obvious that the authors of "6NF" bluffed that they obtained atomic data

structures. This title given to the paper on "Anchor modeling" is further proof

that "Anchor Modeling" is plagiarism, because it is a big nonsense to write that

"Anchor Modeling is an Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form ...".

Edgar Codd also tried to solve the problem of "atomic structures". He also took a

non-scientific approach, that is, bluffing. Codd introduces an invisible

identifier. This "construction" seems strange because it is not clear how the

identifier can be invisible. It is obvious that a good hacker can create chaos in

a database that has a surrogate key and that is the reason why Codd introduce

invisible surrogate key.

But most importantly, Codd did not answer: How does the identifier fit into Codd's

theory that everything is attribute-based. Attributes and properties are the

foundations of Semantics and Meaning. Apparently, Codd was bluffing that he had

figured out how to construct atomic structures.

Vladimir Odrljin

On September 17, 2005 I posted on my website www.dbdesign10.com my first paper

called: Some ideas about a new Data Model.

I also presented my paper on this user group on September 23, 2005. I called this

thread "Database design, Keys and some other things".

To my surprise, this topic aroused great interest and much discussion. My

answering the questions asked in this user group became my second job and it took

me a lot of my time in the next 10 years to answer on these questions. My main

problem was my poor knowledge of English.

At the time, the discussion in this group was being translated into more than 10

languages - a number that I noticed by chance, probably that number was higher. I

want to say that this topic was known to a large number of expert people. The

number of professional people who saw my work was much higher than several editors

of professional journals.

I would like to point out that the following things were solved for the first time

in my papers:

1.

In my work, the theory about the identification of entities, identification of

relationships between entities, and a number of details related to this field were

introduced and solved for the first time.

2.

For the first time a solution was given for the theory of changes of objects and

changes of their relationships. This theory is at the level of Logic, Semantics,

Meaning, and Theory of Thought.

3.

For the first time, "Atomic Structures" are solved for thoughts, concepts-objects,

predicates, and propositions.

This means that for the first time it is determined how exactly thoughts,

concepts-objects, predicates, and propositions are constructed.

4.

Each of my data structures has the identifier of a state of an entity and does not

use an idea of "key".

5.

In terms of atomic data structures, my model has only two events with atomic data:

(i) An event when an atomic structure receives a new value (attribute);

(ii) An event when an atomic structure ceases to have some value (attribute),

which it had until then;

(iii) We note in our database the previously mentioned two events on the atomic

structure, with help of other events that we call time.

Thus, the entire database has only these two events that are related to the

data.

These, the aforementioned beginnings of the five new theories were plagiarized by

the authors of "Anchor Modeling", from my papers.

Example:

The authors of "Anchor Modeling" put in the title of their work "6NF". This title

is as follows::

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for

Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no one "An Agile Modeling Technique" that uses "6NF" because "6NF" is

just a name.

To give a name to something is not in the field of science. It's not some

procedure or an algorithm or some relevant theory or proof.

It is obvious that the authors of "6NF" bluffed that they obtained atomic data

structures. This title given to the paper on "Anchor modeling" is further proof

that "Anchor Modeling" is plagiarism, because it is a big nonsense to write that

"Anchor Modeling is an Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form ...".

Edgar Codd also tried to solve the problem of "atomic structures". He also took a

non-scientific approach, that is, bluffing. Codd introduces an invisible

identifier. This "construction" seems strange because it is not clear how the

identifier can be invisible. It is obvious that a good hacker can create chaos in

a database that has a surrogate key and that is the reason why Codd introduce

invisible surrogate key.

But most importantly, Codd did not answer: How does the identifier fit into Codd's

theory that everything is attribute-based. Attributes and properties are the

foundations of Semantics and Meaning. Apparently, Codd was bluffing that he had

figured out how to construct atomic structures.

Vladimir Odrljin

Message has been deleted

Mar 24, 2020, 1:59:17 PM3/24/20

to

The following three definitions are the basis for the „anchor model". The main terms "identities" and "anchor" are introduced here as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

Def 2 (Anchor). An anchor A(C) is a table with one column. The domain of C is ID.

The primary key for A is C.

Def 5 (Historized Attribute). A historized attribute Hatt(C, D, T) for an anchor A(C) is a table with three columns. The domain of C is ID, of D a non-null data type, and of T a non-null time type. Hatt.C is a non-null foreign key with respect to A.C.(Hatt.C, Hatt.T) is a primary key for Satt .

--------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the authors did not define the basic terms "identities" and "anchor" at all. For example, the authors define "identities" as the following puzzle:

"Def 1 (Identities). Let ID is an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.“

As far as I know, in published papers on database theory, there is no such thing as "identity" or "identities" and "identity" of entities, and that "identity" is surrogate.

Specially, surrogates can't identify anything in the real world. For this reason Codd's surrogate can not be identifier, although Codd named it "identifier".

In his work „Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture More Meaning“ in section 4, E. Codd wrote the following: „ A solution – proposed in part in [4] and more fully in [14] – is to introduce entity domains which contain system-assigned surrogates. Database users may cause the system to generate or delete a surrogate, but they have no control over its value, nor is its value ever displayed to them.“ Why is Codd introducing an invisible surrogate key? The reason is that surrogates

have no connection to the real world. One hacker can create chaos in a database

that uses surrogates.

----------

However, in mathematical theory, there is an identity between the two objects and

this theory is known as Leibniz's Law.

The Identity of Indiscernibles is usually formulated as follows:

if, for every property F, object x has F if and only if object y has F, then x is

identical to y. Or in the notation of symbolic logic: ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y.

From the previous formula we can conclude the following: if x and y are distinct

then there is at least one property that x has and y does not, or vice versa.

The converse of the formula, x=y → ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy), is called

The Indiscernibility of Identicals. The conjunction of both formula is known as

Leibniz's Law.

----------

It should be noted here how well Leibniz defined this law. He defined this law as

the equality of two objects. In this equality, Leibniz linked propositional logic (equivalence, implication and conjunction), equality, properties and attributes, predicate logic and objects.

A Tarski defines Leibniz's Law as :

x = y iff ∀P(P(x) ↔ P(y))

K Godel defines Leibniz's Law as: :

Xn = Yn iff ∀Xn+1 (Xn+1 (Xn) → Xn+1 (Yn))

The previous two lines presented Leibniz's, Godel's, and Tarski's reflections on objects and how objects should be determine. These are the three mathematicians who belong to the group of the greatest mathematicians in the history of mathematics.

If the authors of "anchor modeling" have another solution which is different from Leibniz's Law then their solution must be present.

What we need to address when designing a database is the following question: what rule to use to define one object (entity). We see from the previous text that this rule boils down to the question: When are two objects (entities) different?

The answer to this question follows from the formula x = y → ∀F (Fx ↔ Fy). Two objects are equal if all properties are equal. From here it follows that two objects are different if they have at least one property different. In fact, using equality of all properties of an object, Leibniz defined the inequality of objects. Now we can conclude that the following two things are important for database design:

A. An entity is determined by its properties, that is, by its attributes.

B. An entity is unique if at least one of its attributes is different from the

corresponding attribute of every other entity.

If we now look at the three main definitions in the first paper on "anchor modeling" given at the beginning of this post, then we see that conditions A and B are not defined at all in "anchor modeling". So anchor modeling does not define what is most important at all:

A. How we construct an entity.

B. How we construct each entity so that it is unique in the database.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In "anchor modeling" authors introduce "anchor" which represents set of surrogate keys. However with a surrogate key, you can't determine anything in the real world.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of the paper that received the first award at Conceptual Modeling - ER 2009 is „Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data“.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However this statement in the title of the paper about „using 6NF“, is not accurate. „6NF“ can not be used in any way because it is just a name. „6NF“ is not a procedure or algorithm. To be more precise, Date and Darwen gave the name „6NF“ for a non-existing procedure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know that anchors are surrogates. However „6NF“ has no surrogates because „6NF“ is defined in the Relational Model. The relational model is based on attributes, that is, Leibniz's low. Surrogates are not attributes.

Can you imagine how it would look like that we have thoughts - that are expressed by means of statements that have surrogates. What is truth value of sentence which has a surrogate?

In August 2010, I discussed with Bob Badour about „6NF“ in "anchor modeling" on this user group. In October 2010, authors of „anchor modeling“ submitted new paper to DKE.

Let's mention that "anchor modeling" is based on the Entity - Relationalship model and that the Relational model is based on relations.

In December 2010, the second paper on "anchor modeling" was published, in the journal DKE (Editor in Chief Peter Chen), in which the authors prove that there is a correspondence between Relational model and "anchor modeling". In my opinion, the authors of "anchor modeling" are wrong, because this is not about correspondence, it's about semantics. For example, the surrogate key from "anchor modeling" has no meaning in the real world. The same goes for Codd's surrogate key.

I want to say that the authors of "anchor modeling" are enabled to quickly publish their second paper in which they did the repairs. It took 4 months from my discussion with Bob to the publication of the second paper about "anchor modeling".

Note that my data model is not based on attributes. My data model is based on the state of an attribute. This is a significant difference between my model and Leibniz's Law.

Another important difference between my model and Leibniz's Law is the definition of truth. My definition of truth is based on semantics and on my theory of identification.

In this regard, I have built precise constructs and procedures for propositions and semantics in present, past and future tense. When it comes to data and databases, then we need to build a completely accurate theory of truth and semantics in present, past and future tense. There are also combinations in which past, present and future are combined.

Let me give one small example: let us have two objects O1 and O2 and let an object named O1 have states S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11. Let an object named O2 have the following states: S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S6, S5, S4, S3, S2, S1. We can now consider the following example:

Object O2 when it has state S6, then goes to states S5, S4, S3, S2, S1. In fact, the future of object O2 is the past of object O1. Or if you want the "age" of object O2 is the "youth" of object O1.

================================================================

In this post, I showed that the authors of "anchor modeling" made serious theoretical mistakes by applying the surrogate key and "6NF". Applying a surrogate key to objects, they rejected Leibniz's Law. However, they use attributes of entities.

I noted that my data model is changing the definition of truth. The truth in my model depends on "states", "past, present and future tense" and "procedures that determine precisely what is mentioned here".

The such serious mistakes mentioned in this post are characteristic of people who do not know well what they are writing about and who use plagiarism.

I would like to say that E. Codd and Date & Darwen substantially participated in the construction of the Relational Model. It is the first data model built as a mathematical theory, which means that it is the first model where you can prove everything. Since all the parts in mathematics are connected then the Relational model is also related to the whole of mathematical theory.

There are other mathematicians involved in the development of the Relational Model. I particularly like the work of Ronald Fagin from IBM, who was able to present the Relational Model using advanced mathematical theories. Some mathematicians have succeeded in linking the Relational Model with advanced mathematical theories. For example, "A Model Theory for Generic Schema Management - Suad Alagic and Philip A. Bernstein, Microsoft Research" is an example of applying the most advanced mathematical theory (Model Theory) to a variety of data models. R. Fagin is also a good expert for Model Theory.

However, in my opinion E. Codd and Date & Darwen failed to resolve "atomic data structures".

Vladimir Odrljin

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

Def 2 (Anchor). An anchor A(C) is a table with one column. The domain of C is ID.

The primary key for A is C.

Def 5 (Historized Attribute). A historized attribute Hatt(C, D, T) for an anchor A(C) is a table with three columns. The domain of C is ID, of D a non-null data type, and of T a non-null time type. Hatt.C is a non-null foreign key with respect to A.C.(Hatt.C, Hatt.T) is a primary key for Satt .

--------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the authors did not define the basic terms "identities" and "anchor" at all. For example, the authors define "identities" as the following puzzle:

"Def 1 (Identities). Let ID is an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.“

As far as I know, in published papers on database theory, there is no such thing as "identity" or "identities" and "identity" of entities, and that "identity" is surrogate.

Specially, surrogates can't identify anything in the real world. For this reason Codd's surrogate can not be identifier, although Codd named it "identifier".

In his work „Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture More Meaning“ in section 4, E. Codd wrote the following: „ A solution – proposed in part in [4] and more fully in [14] – is to introduce entity domains which contain system-assigned surrogates. Database users may cause the system to generate or delete a surrogate, but they have no control over its value, nor is its value ever displayed to them.“ Why is Codd introducing an invisible surrogate key? The reason is that surrogates

have no connection to the real world. One hacker can create chaos in a database

that uses surrogates.

----------

However, in mathematical theory, there is an identity between the two objects and

this theory is known as Leibniz's Law.

The Identity of Indiscernibles is usually formulated as follows:

if, for every property F, object x has F if and only if object y has F, then x is

identical to y. Or in the notation of symbolic logic: ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y.

From the previous formula we can conclude the following: if x and y are distinct

then there is at least one property that x has and y does not, or vice versa.

The converse of the formula, x=y → ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy), is called

The Indiscernibility of Identicals. The conjunction of both formula is known as

Leibniz's Law.

----------

It should be noted here how well Leibniz defined this law. He defined this law as

the equality of two objects. In this equality, Leibniz linked propositional logic (equivalence, implication and conjunction), equality, properties and attributes, predicate logic and objects.

A Tarski defines Leibniz's Law as :

x = y iff ∀P(P(x) ↔ P(y))

K Godel defines Leibniz's Law as: :

Xn = Yn iff ∀Xn+1 (Xn+1 (Xn) → Xn+1 (Yn))

The previous two lines presented Leibniz's, Godel's, and Tarski's reflections on objects and how objects should be determine. These are the three mathematicians who belong to the group of the greatest mathematicians in the history of mathematics.

If the authors of "anchor modeling" have another solution which is different from Leibniz's Law then their solution must be present.

What we need to address when designing a database is the following question: what rule to use to define one object (entity). We see from the previous text that this rule boils down to the question: When are two objects (entities) different?

The answer to this question follows from the formula x = y → ∀F (Fx ↔ Fy). Two objects are equal if all properties are equal. From here it follows that two objects are different if they have at least one property different. In fact, using equality of all properties of an object, Leibniz defined the inequality of objects. Now we can conclude that the following two things are important for database design:

A. An entity is determined by its properties, that is, by its attributes.

B. An entity is unique if at least one of its attributes is different from the

corresponding attribute of every other entity.

If we now look at the three main definitions in the first paper on "anchor modeling" given at the beginning of this post, then we see that conditions A and B are not defined at all in "anchor modeling". So anchor modeling does not define what is most important at all:

A. How we construct an entity.

B. How we construct each entity so that it is unique in the database.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In "anchor modeling" authors introduce "anchor" which represents set of surrogate keys. However with a surrogate key, you can't determine anything in the real world.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of the paper that received the first award at Conceptual Modeling - ER 2009 is „Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data“.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However this statement in the title of the paper about „using 6NF“, is not accurate. „6NF“ can not be used in any way because it is just a name. „6NF“ is not a procedure or algorithm. To be more precise, Date and Darwen gave the name „6NF“ for a non-existing procedure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know that anchors are surrogates. However „6NF“ has no surrogates because „6NF“ is defined in the Relational Model. The relational model is based on attributes, that is, Leibniz's low. Surrogates are not attributes.

Can you imagine how it would look like that we have thoughts - that are expressed by means of statements that have surrogates. What is truth value of sentence which has a surrogate?

In August 2010, I discussed with Bob Badour about „6NF“ in "anchor modeling" on this user group. In October 2010, authors of „anchor modeling“ submitted new paper to DKE.

Let's mention that "anchor modeling" is based on the Entity - Relationalship model and that the Relational model is based on relations.

In December 2010, the second paper on "anchor modeling" was published, in the journal DKE (Editor in Chief Peter Chen), in which the authors prove that there is a correspondence between Relational model and "anchor modeling". In my opinion, the authors of "anchor modeling" are wrong, because this is not about correspondence, it's about semantics. For example, the surrogate key from "anchor modeling" has no meaning in the real world. The same goes for Codd's surrogate key.

I want to say that the authors of "anchor modeling" are enabled to quickly publish their second paper in which they did the repairs. It took 4 months from my discussion with Bob to the publication of the second paper about "anchor modeling".

Note that my data model is not based on attributes. My data model is based on the state of an attribute. This is a significant difference between my model and Leibniz's Law.

Another important difference between my model and Leibniz's Law is the definition of truth. My definition of truth is based on semantics and on my theory of identification.

In this regard, I have built precise constructs and procedures for propositions and semantics in present, past and future tense. When it comes to data and databases, then we need to build a completely accurate theory of truth and semantics in present, past and future tense. There are also combinations in which past, present and future are combined.

Let me give one small example: let us have two objects O1 and O2 and let an object named O1 have states S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11. Let an object named O2 have the following states: S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S6, S5, S4, S3, S2, S1. We can now consider the following example:

Object O2 when it has state S6, then goes to states S5, S4, S3, S2, S1. In fact, the future of object O2 is the past of object O1. Or if you want the "age" of object O2 is the "youth" of object O1.

================================================================

In this post, I showed that the authors of "anchor modeling" made serious theoretical mistakes by applying the surrogate key and "6NF". Applying a surrogate key to objects, they rejected Leibniz's Law. However, they use attributes of entities.

I noted that my data model is changing the definition of truth. The truth in my model depends on "states", "past, present and future tense" and "procedures that determine precisely what is mentioned here".

The such serious mistakes mentioned in this post are characteristic of people who do not know well what they are writing about and who use plagiarism.

I would like to say that E. Codd and Date & Darwen substantially participated in the construction of the Relational Model. It is the first data model built as a mathematical theory, which means that it is the first model where you can prove everything. Since all the parts in mathematics are connected then the Relational model is also related to the whole of mathematical theory.

There are other mathematicians involved in the development of the Relational Model. I particularly like the work of Ronald Fagin from IBM, who was able to present the Relational Model using advanced mathematical theories. Some mathematicians have succeeded in linking the Relational Model with advanced mathematical theories. For example, "A Model Theory for Generic Schema Management - Suad Alagic and Philip A. Bernstein, Microsoft Research" is an example of applying the most advanced mathematical theory (Model Theory) to a variety of data models. R. Fagin is also a good expert for Model Theory.

However, in my opinion E. Codd and Date & Darwen failed to resolve "atomic data structures".

Vladimir Odrljin

Mar 25, 2020, 11:53:18 AM3/25/20

to

I accidentally deleted this message yesterday from this thread. I am now posting it again, with the same text as it was first published in February 2020.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors of "anchor modeling" in their first paper plagiarized large and important parts of my paper. My paper was published 5 years before "anchor modeling" and presented on this user group. In this post I will write only about "relationships". The authors of "anchor modeling" use name „ties“ for relationships.

I called my database theory "General Database Theory" which has atomic data structures.

In this post I will consider only Definition 9 used for HistorizedTie because it is the most complex one. Definition 9 is written in the first paper of "anchor modeling" :

*********************************************************************

Def 9 (Historized Tie). A historized tie Htie(C1, C2 , ... , Cn, T) relating a set of

anchors {A1(C1) , ... , Am(Cm)} is a table with n + 1 columns satisfying n m

and n 2, where for every i in [1, n], Htie.Ci is a non-null foreign key to some

Aj.Cj for j in [1,m], and the domain of the last column T is a non-null time

type. The primary key for Htie is a subset of (C1 , ... , Cn, T) containing T.

*********************************************************************

First, to mention the first nonsense from "anchor modeling". In "anchor modeling", history was not defined at all. There is one question for authors of "anchor modeling": what is "history" and from what this "history" is consist of. In "anchor modeling" history is a basic term, but the authors of "anchor modeling" do not define that history.

For example in my database theory there is only history of events and there are only two events, from which the history of the database is built. One event is "new data in the database" and the other event is "the termination of one existing data in database". There is no data update operation and no data deletion operation.

To explain how bad „anchor modeling“ is, I'll take the following real-life example:

In cities, there is always a group of m water meters that supplies a group of n buildings. Here there are m-n relationships. A database describing everything related to water consumption and water meters operation is required, including physical location, water billing, receipt, postal services, courts, new streets and new buildings, demolished buildings and much more. First of all, I will be doing history of events in this database.

In this example, we have n - m relationships between water meters and the buildings they supply. It is common for large buildings to have more vertical water lines. In that way the tenant has water in his kitchen even when the water line in the bathroom is not working. For a company that sells water, it is very important when a malfunction occurred, that is, when a water meter did not work correctly, it must also know all the necessary information for each water meter. It must be known when the water meter is repaired. Or which vertical line did not work in the building (there are many cases).

For example, a bulldozer may damage a large water pipe that is bilow street level and the amount of water that has leaked into the street is huge.

The computer center must have accurate data, when something happened, who is responsible for the data entered, etc. A history of events in the database is required. Which water meters worked and which didn't work. It is also necessary to know which vertical lines of water in the building worked and which did not work. This means that these are intervals of time during which supply of water worked or not. Litigation can occur and many other combinations are possible if you do not have accurate information.

I would like to point out again: there are time intervals here. In this example it is not a question of some time „T“ , as it was suggested by authors of anchor modeling. In addition to these notes which include the so-called temporal data, there are also Bitemporal data. You can see how Bitemporal data is done in my first paper from 2005, which I often mentioned in this user group. You can go to www.dbdesign10.com or www.dbdesign11.com and select "Some ideas about a new Data Model". In this paper, select example 2.5. This is the first example on the world that presenting work with Bitemporal data on an atomic data structure.

My solution for atomic structures is the only solution that allows n-temporal data. The term "n-temporal" data means that one data is presented in n different "worlds". I'm writing about all this to explain how bad the „anchor modeling“ solution is for temporal databases.

In definition 9, presented at the beginning of the text, from their first paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" presented the most complex case (that is, relationships) as follows:

„Def 9 (Historized Tie). A historized tie Htie(C1, C2 , ... , Cn, T)“

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does "T" mean in Def 9, when „T“ is applied to data that is at "temporal intervals" and to „n-temporal“ data?

In my opinion - T mean almost nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

„Anchor modeling“ was selected as the best paper of Conceptual Modeling - ER 2009: 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Gramado, Brazil, November 9-12, 2009.

Honorary President Peter Chen.

I found out about "anchor modeling" at the end of May, 2010. I started "thread" on May 26, 2010, on this user group about plagiarism that authors of "anchor modeling" did in their scientific paper. The title of the thread was "The original version ". I wrote in this thread that the main ideas from "anchor modeling" were plagiarism of my papers presented on this group.

I also wrote that in this paper about "anchor modeling", lacks important things from my paper. And that "anchor modeling" in addition to being plagiarism of my papers,is also wrong because it lacks important things from mine new results, which are written in my papers.

Immediately after my criticisms of this plagiarism in "anchor modeling", in December 2010, the authors of "anchor modeling" soon published their new(second) paper in DKE, editor-in-chief Peter Chen. In just six months of my writing about this plagiarism on this user group, the authors of "Anchor Modeling" have published a new paper in which they continue to plagiarize key concepts from my papers. My results were presented to this user group five years before the paper of "anchor modeling" and these are the results that are of fundamental importance for the development of all software.

In this second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" try to correct the serious errors from the first paper, and again using the results from my papers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This second paper from "anchor modeling" is proof that their first paper is inaccurate plagiarism, and that the authors of "Anchor modeling" must therefore plagiarize other important solutions from my papers.

I will mention once again that the first paper on "anchor modeling" won the first prize at the World Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of the second paper published by the authors of „anchor modeling“ in DKE is: "Anchor Modeling Agile Information Modeling in Evolving Data Environments."

In definition 16 from their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize important pieces from my papers. These plagiarized parts from my paper are very important because they are the beginnings of new theories and they are the most important parts of new theories.

Here is definition 16:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 16 (Identifier). Let T be a (static, historized, knotted, or knoted historized) tie. An identifier for T is a subset of T containing at least one anchor role. Furthermore, if T is a historized or knotted historized tie, where T is the time type in T, every identifier for T must contain T .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this definition 16, the authors of Anchor modeling "introduce" identifier. Definition 16 also contains the following section of the text: „every identifier for T must contain T “.

We must immediately say that the identifier from Definition 16 is not the identifier. That's the surrogate key.

Most importantly, Codd's surrogate key and the surrogate key from Definition 16 are in complete contrast to the foundations of the Relational Model and the Entity-Relationship Model. The Relational model and the Entity-Relationship model are based on "Properties and Attributes".

However „anchor modeling“ is Entity-Relationship model. To make the confusion bigger, the authors of "anchor modeling" has put in the title of the first paper "An Agile modeling technique using the sixth normal form for structurally and temporally evolving data".

However, the sixth normal form is from a Relational model, not from an Entity-relationship model.

On the other hand Relational Model and Entity-relationship model are based on properties and attributes. Surrogates are not an attributes. The first paper from „anchor modeling“ with such theoretical holes has won first prize !!!

The identifier is not an attribute of an entity. It is astonishing, therefore, that Peter Chen, as Honorary President of the ER Conference and Editor of DKE Magazine, accepts "anchor modeling".

The authors of "anchor modeling" wrote second major plagiarism in their second paper. The authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize my new theory in which I introduce states of entities and states of relationships. This is a completely new database theory that differs significantly from the Relational model and the Entity-Relationship model

The authors of "anchor modeling" introduced(plagiarized) the states in their second paper in section 4.5, entitled as "Modeling States".

I presented "states" and "identifiers" to this user group 5 years before the second paper from authors of "anchor modeling".

Let's look again how relationships are defined,

In the first (award-winning) paper from "anchor modeling" authors defined relationships, that is, "Ties", in the following way:

Def 9 (Historized Tie). A historized tie Htie(C1, C2 , ... , Cn, T)

In theirs second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling":

After my public criticism of the first paper about „anchor modeling“ on this user group, the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized „identifiers and states“ from my papers and introduced „identifiers and states“, in theirs second paper,

So scientists from the Stockholm University change in a short time the most important concepts in their paper and introduce the basic new elements from my papers into their "papers". These new basic elements are foundations of completely new theories. These theories are related to other important theories. These new basic elements are related to theory of truth, to truth in the past, future and present, to truth of atomic sentences and to thoughts, to identification, meaning, semantic and not semantic theories. These new basics elements are related to some other important things.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized my very important solutions. They put my ideas and solutions in theirs first paper.

2. Their most basic term "anchor" is plagiarism of my very important ideas., in fact these ideas are beginning of completely new theory.

3. But authors of „anchor modeling“ did not realize that „anchor“ could not work without the theory of identification and without the theory of states of objects and states of relationships.

4. The authors of „anchor modeling“ used my public notes about theirs huge mistakes in the first paper about „anchor modeling“ and they plagiarized my important theories in their second paper. They plagiarized my theory of identification and theory of states. These theories formally describe "changes" in the real world and in the abstract world.

This second paper by authors of „anchor modeling“ is the clear proof that their first and second paper plagiarized my papers. However authors of „anchor modeling“ didn't realized that these new theories are related to many new fields.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also like to point out the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My atomic data structures are much better solution for databases and for data warehouses than „anchor modeling“ .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, let me mention that Peter Chen is american citizen and I am american citizen also. Authors of "anchor modeling" are not american citizens. Of course, nationality is not important for scientific papers. However if it is brutal plagiarism then it is important.

Vladimir Odrljin

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors of "anchor modeling" in their first paper plagiarized large and important parts of my paper. My paper was published 5 years before "anchor modeling" and presented on this user group. In this post I will write only about "relationships". The authors of "anchor modeling" use name „ties“ for relationships.

I called my database theory "General Database Theory" which has atomic data structures.

In this post I will consider only Definition 9 used for HistorizedTie because it is the most complex one. Definition 9 is written in the first paper of "anchor modeling" :

*********************************************************************

Def 9 (Historized Tie). A historized tie Htie(C1, C2 , ... , Cn, T) relating a set of

anchors {A1(C1) , ... , Am(Cm)} is a table with n + 1 columns satisfying n m

and n 2, where for every i in [1, n], Htie.Ci is a non-null foreign key to some

Aj.Cj for j in [1,m], and the domain of the last column T is a non-null time

type. The primary key for Htie is a subset of (C1 , ... , Cn, T) containing T.

*********************************************************************

First, to mention the first nonsense from "anchor modeling". In "anchor modeling", history was not defined at all. There is one question for authors of "anchor modeling": what is "history" and from what this "history" is consist of. In "anchor modeling" history is a basic term, but the authors of "anchor modeling" do not define that history.

For example in my database theory there is only history of events and there are only two events, from which the history of the database is built. One event is "new data in the database" and the other event is "the termination of one existing data in database". There is no data update operation and no data deletion operation.

To explain how bad „anchor modeling“ is, I'll take the following real-life example:

In cities, there is always a group of m water meters that supplies a group of n buildings. Here there are m-n relationships. A database describing everything related to water consumption and water meters operation is required, including physical location, water billing, receipt, postal services, courts, new streets and new buildings, demolished buildings and much more. First of all, I will be doing history of events in this database.

In this example, we have n - m relationships between water meters and the buildings they supply. It is common for large buildings to have more vertical water lines. In that way the tenant has water in his kitchen even when the water line in the bathroom is not working. For a company that sells water, it is very important when a malfunction occurred, that is, when a water meter did not work correctly, it must also know all the necessary information for each water meter. It must be known when the water meter is repaired. Or which vertical line did not work in the building (there are many cases).

For example, a bulldozer may damage a large water pipe that is bilow street level and the amount of water that has leaked into the street is huge.

The computer center must have accurate data, when something happened, who is responsible for the data entered, etc. A history of events in the database is required. Which water meters worked and which didn't work. It is also necessary to know which vertical lines of water in the building worked and which did not work. This means that these are intervals of time during which supply of water worked or not. Litigation can occur and many other combinations are possible if you do not have accurate information.

I would like to point out again: there are time intervals here. In this example it is not a question of some time „T“ , as it was suggested by authors of anchor modeling. In addition to these notes which include the so-called temporal data, there are also Bitemporal data. You can see how Bitemporal data is done in my first paper from 2005, which I often mentioned in this user group. You can go to www.dbdesign10.com or www.dbdesign11.com and select "Some ideas about a new Data Model". In this paper, select example 2.5. This is the first example on the world that presenting work with Bitemporal data on an atomic data structure.

My solution for atomic structures is the only solution that allows n-temporal data. The term "n-temporal" data means that one data is presented in n different "worlds". I'm writing about all this to explain how bad the „anchor modeling“ solution is for temporal databases.

In definition 9, presented at the beginning of the text, from their first paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" presented the most complex case (that is, relationships) as follows:

„Def 9 (Historized Tie). A historized tie Htie(C1, C2 , ... , Cn, T)“

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does "T" mean in Def 9, when „T“ is applied to data that is at "temporal intervals" and to „n-temporal“ data?

In my opinion - T mean almost nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

„Anchor modeling“ was selected as the best paper of Conceptual Modeling - ER 2009: 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Gramado, Brazil, November 9-12, 2009.

Honorary President Peter Chen.

I found out about "anchor modeling" at the end of May, 2010. I started "thread" on May 26, 2010, on this user group about plagiarism that authors of "anchor modeling" did in their scientific paper. The title of the thread was "The original version ". I wrote in this thread that the main ideas from "anchor modeling" were plagiarism of my papers presented on this group.

I also wrote that in this paper about "anchor modeling", lacks important things from my paper. And that "anchor modeling" in addition to being plagiarism of my papers,is also wrong because it lacks important things from mine new results, which are written in my papers.

Immediately after my criticisms of this plagiarism in "anchor modeling", in December 2010, the authors of "anchor modeling" soon published their new(second) paper in DKE, editor-in-chief Peter Chen. In just six months of my writing about this plagiarism on this user group, the authors of "Anchor Modeling" have published a new paper in which they continue to plagiarize key concepts from my papers. My results were presented to this user group five years before the paper of "anchor modeling" and these are the results that are of fundamental importance for the development of all software.

In this second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" try to correct the serious errors from the first paper, and again using the results from my papers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This second paper from "anchor modeling" is proof that their first paper is inaccurate plagiarism, and that the authors of "Anchor modeling" must therefore plagiarize other important solutions from my papers.

I will mention once again that the first paper on "anchor modeling" won the first prize at the World Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The title of the second paper published by the authors of „anchor modeling“ in DKE is: "Anchor Modeling Agile Information Modeling in Evolving Data Environments."

In definition 16 from their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize important pieces from my papers. These plagiarized parts from my paper are very important because they are the beginnings of new theories and they are the most important parts of new theories.

Here is definition 16:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 16 (Identifier). Let T be a (static, historized, knotted, or knoted historized) tie. An identifier for T is a subset of T containing at least one anchor role. Furthermore, if T is a historized or knotted historized tie, where T is the time type in T, every identifier for T must contain T .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this definition 16, the authors of Anchor modeling "introduce" identifier. Definition 16 also contains the following section of the text: „every identifier for T must contain T “.

We must immediately say that the identifier from Definition 16 is not the identifier. That's the surrogate key.

Most importantly, Codd's surrogate key and the surrogate key from Definition 16 are in complete contrast to the foundations of the Relational Model and the Entity-Relationship Model. The Relational model and the Entity-Relationship model are based on "Properties and Attributes".

However „anchor modeling“ is Entity-Relationship model. To make the confusion bigger, the authors of "anchor modeling" has put in the title of the first paper "An Agile modeling technique using the sixth normal form for structurally and temporally evolving data".

However, the sixth normal form is from a Relational model, not from an Entity-relationship model.

On the other hand Relational Model and Entity-relationship model are based on properties and attributes. Surrogates are not an attributes. The first paper from „anchor modeling“ with such theoretical holes has won first prize !!!

The identifier is not an attribute of an entity. It is astonishing, therefore, that Peter Chen, as Honorary President of the ER Conference and Editor of DKE Magazine, accepts "anchor modeling".

The authors of "anchor modeling" wrote second major plagiarism in their second paper. The authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize my new theory in which I introduce states of entities and states of relationships. This is a completely new database theory that differs significantly from the Relational model and the Entity-Relationship model

The authors of "anchor modeling" introduced(plagiarized) the states in their second paper in section 4.5, entitled as "Modeling States".

I presented "states" and "identifiers" to this user group 5 years before the second paper from authors of "anchor modeling".

Let's look again how relationships are defined,

In the first (award-winning) paper from "anchor modeling" authors defined relationships, that is, "Ties", in the following way:

Def 9 (Historized Tie). A historized tie Htie(C1, C2 , ... , Cn, T)

In theirs second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling":

After my public criticism of the first paper about „anchor modeling“ on this user group, the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized „identifiers and states“ from my papers and introduced „identifiers and states“, in theirs second paper,

So scientists from the Stockholm University change in a short time the most important concepts in their paper and introduce the basic new elements from my papers into their "papers". These new basic elements are foundations of completely new theories. These theories are related to other important theories. These new basic elements are related to theory of truth, to truth in the past, future and present, to truth of atomic sentences and to thoughts, to identification, meaning, semantic and not semantic theories. These new basics elements are related to some other important things.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized my very important solutions. They put my ideas and solutions in theirs first paper.

2. Their most basic term "anchor" is plagiarism of my very important ideas., in fact these ideas are beginning of completely new theory.

3. But authors of „anchor modeling“ did not realize that „anchor“ could not work without the theory of identification and without the theory of states of objects and states of relationships.

4. The authors of „anchor modeling“ used my public notes about theirs huge mistakes in the first paper about „anchor modeling“ and they plagiarized my important theories in their second paper. They plagiarized my theory of identification and theory of states. These theories formally describe "changes" in the real world and in the abstract world.

This second paper by authors of „anchor modeling“ is the clear proof that their first and second paper plagiarized my papers. However authors of „anchor modeling“ didn't realized that these new theories are related to many new fields.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also like to point out the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My atomic data structures are much better solution for databases and for data warehouses than „anchor modeling“ .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, let me mention that Peter Chen is american citizen and I am american citizen also. Authors of "anchor modeling" are not american citizens. Of course, nationality is not important for scientific papers. However if it is brutal plagiarism then it is important.

Vladimir Odrljin

Apr 29, 2020, 6:12:53 PM4/29/20

to

In this thread so far, I've shown that "anchor modeling" is not a data model at all. My solution is a data model and that is the essential difference between my solution and anchor modeling.

In the title of their paper stands "Anchor Modeling" which means that it is a new data model.

In this section labeled with 1, I will present that authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized my 5 new theories. These theories are new theories and very important to may data model and my papers.

1. The beginnings of five new theories from my papers whose important

parts have been plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling".

(i) The theory of changes of attributes, entities and relationships.

This is an area where I have made it possible, through precise procedures, to keep track of all changes made to an object, that is, to keep a history of changes on each entity and every relationship between objects. This solves for the first time a problem of a more general nature than the Ship of "Theseus". Note that with the Ship of "Theseus" problem, we only have to replace the failed parts with new ones. These new parts are the same as the failed parts of the ship. However, with my solution, I have the entities change their attributes, for example, a car has changed color from red to blue. This is a changed car that we still treat as the same car.

We also consider our acquaintances to be the same persons even though these persons have changed many attributes during their lifetime. Many of our documents are with the same identifiers even though we have changed as entities.

This idea of treating a modified object as the same was a big problem for me. In mathematics we mostly use proof as a tool. However, mentioned solution had to be incorporated into database theory, semantics, logic and "mental procedures".

My solution was taken by authors of “anchor modeling” and presented as theirs, although my solution was published 5 years before it was published by these authors from Stockholm university.

My solution has been posted on my two private websites that I have been paying for 15 and 13 years. This solution has been extensively discussed for 5 years and occasionally for next 10 years on this user group which is the most famous user group for database theory.

(ii) Linking multiple "mental procedures" into one complex procedure

In this procedure, I have connected a two identifiers into one unit. It is the identifier of an entity and the identifier of the state of an entity. Here, I have realized the idea that every person uses "mental procedures" in their daily activities. In this case, I implemented a "mental" procedure that allows each entity to be identified and a "mental!" procedure that implements another procedure that implements changes to each attribute, entity, and changes to each relationship.

The problem of constructing complex „mental procedures“ is also solved here, that is, how to link two procedures into one complex procedure - how to link object identification and object changes. I did this by linking these two mentioned identifiers.

The important thing here is that I did not use the "artificial intelligence" approach. I have applied realistic human mental procedures, of which I am aware of how I do it as a human being.

The problem known as the Theseus ship, 2500 years old, was solved for the first time. Throughout history, a number of prominent scholars have been interested in this problem. So this is a plagiarism of significant scientific solutions.

My solution was completely plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling" and presented as theirs, and they called it "anchor modeling". I presented this solution 5 years before anchor modeling on this user group, there was a great discussion about it. You can still see this discussion on this user group now. So this topic is very important for science, for data and for software in general. Software is the number one industry today. I want to point out the importance of this plagiarism.

(iii)

Identification theory

You can notice that I used identifiers instead of keys. This means that access to the data in my databases is simple, that is, I do not use a complex key to access the entity. One of the things that allows this simple access to data is my theory relating to changes of attributes, changes of entities and changes of relationships, described in the previous section. Authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my "theory of identification" and gave it name "anchor modeling".

My database always has identifiers of entities and identifiers of states of entities. Of course, for this approach, I have devoted a lot of time to this problem. Over time, I realized that this was not a new theory, but rather the beginnings of more data theories. Identification theory changes the theory of truth. Identification theory also introduces precise procedures for determing the truth.

In their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" publish corrections of errors from the first paper. These corrections came after my criticisms of errors in their first paper. The authors of "anchor modeling" publish fixes from the first paper in their second paper. These correct ones were made after my criticisms of mistakes and plagiarism from the first paper. They introduces „identifiers“ in their second paper. Identifiers are my important idea.

The authors of "anchor modeling" make this correction in Definition 16 (Identifier) (Editor in Chief Peter Chen).

Below this definition, they explain what is an identifier - with the following words: "An identifier is similar to a kay in relation databases".

However, from their phrase "An identifier is similar to a key in relation databases" it is not clear that neither the authors of this sentence nor Peter Chen understand what is "a key in relational databases", what is "semantics" and what is " identifier "....As far as I know, relational databases do not have identifiers.

(iv)

The theory of states of entities , states of relationships and states of attributes .

I established completely well-defined procedures that determine the states of entities and states of relationships, as well as their construction.

These precise procedures are also done for just one piece of information, which can be found in "n worlds".

A state of entities are defined by using the following two identifiers:

The Identifier of the entity and the identifier of the the state of the entity.

Attributes, entities, and relationships change over time. Also we have issues regarding existing and not existing entities and relationships.

Important Note: In my first paper(from 2005), I also managed to enable entity decomposition into atomic structures. In this way it is possible to represent the states of an entity as a set of atomic states of the entity.

The authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized "states" in their second paper, section 4.5 "Modeling States". Note that their first paper received the award at the most important conference for "conceptual modeling" and "entity - relationship modeling"!?. Now in their second paper, the authors of „anchor modeling“ are introducing repairs and adding major new areas to fix bugs in the award-winning paper.

(v)

Atomic data structures

I defined atomic structures of entities, and corresponding atomic structures of propositions, predicates, concepts and thoughts. I constructed in detail procedures that allow entities to be represented via appropriate atomic structures. We can see that atomic structures are expressed by using the appropriate structures of spoken language. My data model is the only one that represent data in the form of atomic structures.

The authors of "anchor modeling" brutally plagiarized my procedure for the atomic structure. For example, they define „Historized Attribute“:

Def 5 (Historized Attribute) A historized attributte Hatt(C, D, T) for an anchor A(C) is table with three columns. The domain of C is ID, of D a non-null data type, and od T a non-null time type. Hatt.C is non-null foreign key with respect to A.C . (Hatt.C, Hatt.T) is a primary key for S att.

I will now explain what "Hatt (C, D, T)" means in the terms used in this user group.

C is a surrogate key, D is an attribute of the corresponding entity, T is the time when the attribute D received some value.

With this definition of "Def 5 (Historized Attribute)" the authors have plagiarized my work.

What is this all about? This is a very important idea, which changes important things in existing software and in the relevant sciences. This solution of mine is not a proof type solution. This is a solution where memory and database organization were implemented.

All changes of an object I linked to the identifier of this object. - this new and very important construction is plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling" and represent it as theirs.

The beginning of the new theories mentioned above are included in the mentioned construction and organization of the database.

My atomic structures completely contain Hatt (C, D, T) and my structures are much more general and better. So the authors of "anchor modeling" made plagiarism of my atomic structure in theirs Def 5.

Like any plagiarist, so do the authors of "anchor modeling" write nonsense, and the nonsense is accepted by the entire conference, along with Honorary President Peter Chen. One such nonsense is time T. As I said earlier, these are time intervals, not some points from time T. The authors of "anchor modeling" want to point out that there is no time interval. When the attribute changes value they put a new T and this is the end of the previous state and the beginning of the new state of attribute D. From this construction of time it is immediately evident that the authors of "anchor modeling" do not understand the essential things.

Example 1

Some car repair company needs to change color on a car. Workers must first take off the old paint. When the opportunity arises, after a couple of days the workers will put a new color on this car. They will not write the following three states, as authors of "anchor modeling" intended:

State 1: Old color

State 2: The state of peeled old paint and two places where rust appeared.

State 3: State of beginning of the new color. (this time interval can start, for example 3 days after „start of state 2“)

However, in business, things are quite different and all you need is the following:

State 1: from – to, period take off the old paint on the car.

State 2: from, date when the new color began.

In this example we can see that the basic structure from "anchor modeling", that is, "Hatt (C, D, T)" - is not good. From a business standpoint, there is only the following interest: (from when - until when) In what period was the old paint removed from this car. And from which date is the new color. We do not need information about two rust points. Therefore, time intervals are required, rather than a single point in the time.

Example 2

I wrote in this thread that we have bitemporal data, threetempopral data, ...., ntemporal data. For example, a gas billing company read the balance of a gas on an instrument for a citizen on November 30, 2019. Submitted that balance to the data entry service on December 5. On December 10, this data was entered into the database. This means that in this case we have three different times T and possibly three errors while entering this one data. Therefore, all three times should be entered in the database. So in this example, it takes three dates T1, T2, T3, not one T, as the authors of "anchor modeling" wrote it in Hatt (C, D, T). In the general case, T1, T2, T3 are the fields for labels and times and dates.

Notice that only my db solution can support ntemporal data.

Example 3

Now, for Example2, the name of the person who entered the data should be added to each data item, as there may be a mistake in entering the data in each of these three dates. That is why this correction should be made by the one who made the mistake. One way to solve this problem is that everyone who enters the data has their password, so that based on the password; the system can write the name of the one who entered the data. In this way, it was determined exactly who was responsible in entering each data.

"Hatt (C, D, T)" is the most important data structures in „anchor modeling and it is wrong. Note that above example is just beginning of the explanation about wrong things in

"Hatt (C, D, T)".

These examples also show that "anchor modeling" is plagiarism because they have made major mistakes at the highest level, that is at the project level. "Hatt (C, D, T)" is the most important data structures in „anchor modeling and it is wrong. Note that above example is just beginning of the explanation about wrong things in "Hatt (C, D, T)".

The definition Def 5 is plagiarism because it is based on the idea of "anchor", that is, my idea that all changes of an entity are tied to the identifier of the entity. With this procedure I solved what could not be solved for 2500 years. However, the authors of "anchor modeling" made a huge mistake here, as I showed in the examples above. I am writing about this to highlight the importance of this plagiarism.

I would also like to highlight the following information. As far as I know bitemporal data has been patented to one person from Microsoft. However, I think a colleague of mine who worked with me at the same company, he solved bitemporal data first but did not patent it.

I solved this problem for ntemporal data. So note that my database solution can solve the general case, which is ntemporal data. In fact my database solution can solve much more then „temporal data“.

In next section labeled 2, I'm going to show that authors of "anchor modeling" use „data warehouse“ as a mask to hide their plagiarism of my paper.

2. Application of "anchor modeling" to date warehouses

The authors of "anchor modeling", in the introduction to their paper, show a great misunderstanding of database theory. In the introduction to their paper, they write that "Maintaining and evolving data warehouses is complex ..."

What they call "complex" is "complex" for beginners. Any professional-level database is "in constant changes", "evolving", "has modifications"., "Track changes" ...

The authors of "anchor modeling", at the beginning of their paper, wrote that "anchor modeling" was a technique for data warehousing.

In my opinion the aim of these authors was general database theory, that is, the most important results are at stake. Note that at the end of their paper, the authors show the advantages of "anchor modeling" over existing data models: They mentioned Data Warehousing, Conceptual modeling, ORM, ER, UML, Temporal Databases, Relational Model ...

*************************************************************************

In their second paper, Anchor Modeling - Agile Information Modeling in Evolving Data Environments, the authors write in the abstract section, page one, the following: "We ... show how anchor models can be realized as relational databases." In this paper, they define the main structure of the "Historized Attribute":

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 7 (Historized Attributes) A historized attribute BH is a string. A historized attribute

BH has an anchor A for domain, a data type D for Range, and a time type as time range. An extension of a historized attribute BH is a relation over I x D x T.

(Published in DKE, Editor in Chief Peter Chen)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know Relational model does not has „Anchor“ !!!

In this small section above, authors presented that Relational Model is a kind of „special case“ for „anchor modeling“

***************************************************************************

Now I will show how this plagiarism is cunningly constructed, so it is hard to see that it is a great plagiarism:

1. The authors of "anchor modeling" showed only their paper which they called "anchor modeling ".

2. They have not shown the most important part of their solution. To be more precise, authors of "anchor modeling" didn't show the folowing: "data-warehouse-key".

3. They have not shown what the whole looks like because the whole is a brutal plagiarism of my paper, that is, the following is not shown: "Data Warehouse" + "Anchor modeling".

The authors of "anchor modeling" did the deception here and they only presented "anchor modeling". The main part of this plagirism is the way how all changes of an entity are linked to a "data-warehouse-key" You can note that "anchor key" is surrogate key, that means "anchor key" is not in the real world. That is the reason why "anchor key" is not identifier.

The authors of "anchor modeling" did the trick here and only showed theory from paper which they called "anchor modeling".

They did not show how they connect their „anchor modeling“ with "date warehouse". They did not show how they connect the anchor key(that is the surrogate key) with the real world.

Now, I will demonstrate these assertion with a specific example: I will take the most important structure from „anchor modeling“. To je Hatt(C, D, T) which they called "historized attribute."

It's a very bad copy of my atomic structures.

C is a surrogate key. The authors of "anchor modeling" called this key "anchor". D is attribut.

T is time.

Roughly speaking, this is the basis of "anchor modeling". It is an atomic structure because it has only one attribute. By the way I have shown that the structure of Hatt (C, D, T) is incorrect. (see example 1, example 2, example 3 in this post where I showed that

Hatt (C, D, T) is incorrect.)

Anchor C is a surrogate key! Now I will show this schematically:

My solution:

----------------

I have the identifier of the entity and the identifier of the state of an entity. I bind all states (or changes) of one entity to the identifier of the entity.

---------------

Anchor solution:

-------------------

They bind all changes of one entity to the „data-warehouse-key“.

As you can see it is blatant plagiarism.

------------------

As you can see, here authors of „anchor modeling“ use „data-warehouse-key“ as mask. Using this mask the authors of "anchor modeling" hide their plagiarism of my paper. So data warehouse has no scientific role to play here, it has a role to cover up the plagiarism of my paper.

-------------------

As you can see from the above two schemes - which I named „My solution" and "Anchor solution" - this is a brutal plagiarism of the most important ideas, which the reader does not see if he is looking only at "anchor modeling" paper.

Only when you take the data warehouse - then you get what the data warehouse does. I would like to point out once again that anchor modeling itself is a brutal plagiarism of my paper. So complete plagiarism is Data Warehouse + "anchor modeling". Note that my solution is a solution of general character.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the plagiarism of my solution, my solution is much better than anchor plagiarism. In other words, my solution contains “Anchor modeling as an insignificant part. I will give three examples:

1. In my solution, I was able to introduce a construct so that my key of an entity is always a simple key. Note that my key is an "the identifier of an entity". No one on this group asked me how I got it, so I didn't explain it. Obviously the authors of „anchor modeling“ took the

data-warehouse-key because they didn't understand how I got the identifier of the entity.

In most cases, the data warehouse key is a very complex key.

2. My database solution does not even need such a huge structure called data warehause.

3. My solution has only "atomic structures". Atomic structures are special story and powerful tool, incomparably more powerful than data warehouses. They allow me to build large databases, if you want there can be thousands of atomic structures, you can call them the small world.

************************************************************************

I divided the previous part of this post into two parts. The reason is that for a long time I did not realize that this plagiarism was done professionally. So I used to jump from one topic to another. I have now organized it into units so that people can understand it more easily. Zato je ovaj post podjeljen u tri dijela koji predstavljaju cijelinu. These sections are marked with 1,2,3 and the corresponding text heading.

3. The third part, which I would call the big mistakes of the authors of "anchor modeling" in the important and large areas for database software.

On this user group, in my thread „Anchor Modeling“ has no history, at all , posted on August 7, 2018 on this user group, I presented two big mistakes in „anchor modeling“:

1.

By using "Anchor Modeling," you can do crime with data just by applying „Anchor modeling technology“.

2.

In my second post, in this thread „Anchor Modeling“ has no history, at all

I would like to point out that in "Anchor modeling" each erroneous data "MUST"

be deleted. In the "Anchor modeling" it is not possible to keep erroneous data

and corrected data. "Anchor modeling" can not maintain history of erroneous

data. So, "Anchor modeling" has no history, at all.

3.

"anchor modeling" can not solve very important part in database theory described in this post, section „Atomic data structures“, look at example 1, example 2, example 3.

These 3 areas, mentioned in this section, are a big part of database theory. They also mean that the authors of "anchor modeling" did plagiarize my papers. Because not knowing these three areas means not knowing much about databases.

Vladimir Odrljin

In the title of their paper stands "Anchor Modeling" which means that it is a new data model.

In this section labeled with 1, I will present that authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized my 5 new theories. These theories are new theories and very important to may data model and my papers.

1. The beginnings of five new theories from my papers whose important

parts have been plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling".

(i) The theory of changes of attributes, entities and relationships.

This is an area where I have made it possible, through precise procedures, to keep track of all changes made to an object, that is, to keep a history of changes on each entity and every relationship between objects. This solves for the first time a problem of a more general nature than the Ship of "Theseus". Note that with the Ship of "Theseus" problem, we only have to replace the failed parts with new ones. These new parts are the same as the failed parts of the ship. However, with my solution, I have the entities change their attributes, for example, a car has changed color from red to blue. This is a changed car that we still treat as the same car.

We also consider our acquaintances to be the same persons even though these persons have changed many attributes during their lifetime. Many of our documents are with the same identifiers even though we have changed as entities.

This idea of treating a modified object as the same was a big problem for me. In mathematics we mostly use proof as a tool. However, mentioned solution had to be incorporated into database theory, semantics, logic and "mental procedures".

My solution was taken by authors of “anchor modeling” and presented as theirs, although my solution was published 5 years before it was published by these authors from Stockholm university.

My solution has been posted on my two private websites that I have been paying for 15 and 13 years. This solution has been extensively discussed for 5 years and occasionally for next 10 years on this user group which is the most famous user group for database theory.

(ii) Linking multiple "mental procedures" into one complex procedure

In this procedure, I have connected a two identifiers into one unit. It is the identifier of an entity and the identifier of the state of an entity. Here, I have realized the idea that every person uses "mental procedures" in their daily activities. In this case, I implemented a "mental" procedure that allows each entity to be identified and a "mental!" procedure that implements another procedure that implements changes to each attribute, entity, and changes to each relationship.

The problem of constructing complex „mental procedures“ is also solved here, that is, how to link two procedures into one complex procedure - how to link object identification and object changes. I did this by linking these two mentioned identifiers.

The important thing here is that I did not use the "artificial intelligence" approach. I have applied realistic human mental procedures, of which I am aware of how I do it as a human being.

The problem known as the Theseus ship, 2500 years old, was solved for the first time. Throughout history, a number of prominent scholars have been interested in this problem. So this is a plagiarism of significant scientific solutions.

My solution was completely plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling" and presented as theirs, and they called it "anchor modeling". I presented this solution 5 years before anchor modeling on this user group, there was a great discussion about it. You can still see this discussion on this user group now. So this topic is very important for science, for data and for software in general. Software is the number one industry today. I want to point out the importance of this plagiarism.

(iii)

Identification theory

You can notice that I used identifiers instead of keys. This means that access to the data in my databases is simple, that is, I do not use a complex key to access the entity. One of the things that allows this simple access to data is my theory relating to changes of attributes, changes of entities and changes of relationships, described in the previous section. Authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my "theory of identification" and gave it name "anchor modeling".

My database always has identifiers of entities and identifiers of states of entities. Of course, for this approach, I have devoted a lot of time to this problem. Over time, I realized that this was not a new theory, but rather the beginnings of more data theories. Identification theory changes the theory of truth. Identification theory also introduces precise procedures for determing the truth.

In their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" publish corrections of errors from the first paper. These corrections came after my criticisms of errors in their first paper. The authors of "anchor modeling" publish fixes from the first paper in their second paper. These correct ones were made after my criticisms of mistakes and plagiarism from the first paper. They introduces „identifiers“ in their second paper. Identifiers are my important idea.

The authors of "anchor modeling" make this correction in Definition 16 (Identifier) (Editor in Chief Peter Chen).

Below this definition, they explain what is an identifier - with the following words: "An identifier is similar to a kay in relation databases".

However, from their phrase "An identifier is similar to a key in relation databases" it is not clear that neither the authors of this sentence nor Peter Chen understand what is "a key in relational databases", what is "semantics" and what is " identifier "....As far as I know, relational databases do not have identifiers.

(iv)

The theory of states of entities , states of relationships and states of attributes .

I established completely well-defined procedures that determine the states of entities and states of relationships, as well as their construction.

These precise procedures are also done for just one piece of information, which can be found in "n worlds".

A state of entities are defined by using the following two identifiers:

The Identifier of the entity and the identifier of the the state of the entity.

Attributes, entities, and relationships change over time. Also we have issues regarding existing and not existing entities and relationships.

Important Note: In my first paper(from 2005), I also managed to enable entity decomposition into atomic structures. In this way it is possible to represent the states of an entity as a set of atomic states of the entity.

The authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized "states" in their second paper, section 4.5 "Modeling States". Note that their first paper received the award at the most important conference for "conceptual modeling" and "entity - relationship modeling"!?. Now in their second paper, the authors of „anchor modeling“ are introducing repairs and adding major new areas to fix bugs in the award-winning paper.

(v)

Atomic data structures

I defined atomic structures of entities, and corresponding atomic structures of propositions, predicates, concepts and thoughts. I constructed in detail procedures that allow entities to be represented via appropriate atomic structures. We can see that atomic structures are expressed by using the appropriate structures of spoken language. My data model is the only one that represent data in the form of atomic structures.

The authors of "anchor modeling" brutally plagiarized my procedure for the atomic structure. For example, they define „Historized Attribute“:

Def 5 (Historized Attribute) A historized attributte Hatt(C, D, T) for an anchor A(C) is table with three columns. The domain of C is ID, of D a non-null data type, and od T a non-null time type. Hatt.C is non-null foreign key with respect to A.C . (Hatt.C, Hatt.T) is a primary key for S att.

I will now explain what "Hatt (C, D, T)" means in the terms used in this user group.

C is a surrogate key, D is an attribute of the corresponding entity, T is the time when the attribute D received some value.

With this definition of "Def 5 (Historized Attribute)" the authors have plagiarized my work.

What is this all about? This is a very important idea, which changes important things in existing software and in the relevant sciences. This solution of mine is not a proof type solution. This is a solution where memory and database organization were implemented.

All changes of an object I linked to the identifier of this object. - this new and very important construction is plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling" and represent it as theirs.

The beginning of the new theories mentioned above are included in the mentioned construction and organization of the database.

My atomic structures completely contain Hatt (C, D, T) and my structures are much more general and better. So the authors of "anchor modeling" made plagiarism of my atomic structure in theirs Def 5.

Like any plagiarist, so do the authors of "anchor modeling" write nonsense, and the nonsense is accepted by the entire conference, along with Honorary President Peter Chen. One such nonsense is time T. As I said earlier, these are time intervals, not some points from time T. The authors of "anchor modeling" want to point out that there is no time interval. When the attribute changes value they put a new T and this is the end of the previous state and the beginning of the new state of attribute D. From this construction of time it is immediately evident that the authors of "anchor modeling" do not understand the essential things.

Example 1

Some car repair company needs to change color on a car. Workers must first take off the old paint. When the opportunity arises, after a couple of days the workers will put a new color on this car. They will not write the following three states, as authors of "anchor modeling" intended:

State 1: Old color

State 2: The state of peeled old paint and two places where rust appeared.

State 3: State of beginning of the new color. (this time interval can start, for example 3 days after „start of state 2“)

However, in business, things are quite different and all you need is the following:

State 1: from – to, period take off the old paint on the car.

State 2: from, date when the new color began.

In this example we can see that the basic structure from "anchor modeling", that is, "Hatt (C, D, T)" - is not good. From a business standpoint, there is only the following interest: (from when - until when) In what period was the old paint removed from this car. And from which date is the new color. We do not need information about two rust points. Therefore, time intervals are required, rather than a single point in the time.

Example 2

I wrote in this thread that we have bitemporal data, threetempopral data, ...., ntemporal data. For example, a gas billing company read the balance of a gas on an instrument for a citizen on November 30, 2019. Submitted that balance to the data entry service on December 5. On December 10, this data was entered into the database. This means that in this case we have three different times T and possibly three errors while entering this one data. Therefore, all three times should be entered in the database. So in this example, it takes three dates T1, T2, T3, not one T, as the authors of "anchor modeling" wrote it in Hatt (C, D, T). In the general case, T1, T2, T3 are the fields for labels and times and dates.

Notice that only my db solution can support ntemporal data.

Example 3

Now, for Example2, the name of the person who entered the data should be added to each data item, as there may be a mistake in entering the data in each of these three dates. That is why this correction should be made by the one who made the mistake. One way to solve this problem is that everyone who enters the data has their password, so that based on the password; the system can write the name of the one who entered the data. In this way, it was determined exactly who was responsible in entering each data.

"Hatt (C, D, T)" is the most important data structures in „anchor modeling and it is wrong. Note that above example is just beginning of the explanation about wrong things in

"Hatt (C, D, T)".

These examples also show that "anchor modeling" is plagiarism because they have made major mistakes at the highest level, that is at the project level. "Hatt (C, D, T)" is the most important data structures in „anchor modeling and it is wrong. Note that above example is just beginning of the explanation about wrong things in "Hatt (C, D, T)".

The definition Def 5 is plagiarism because it is based on the idea of "anchor", that is, my idea that all changes of an entity are tied to the identifier of the entity. With this procedure I solved what could not be solved for 2500 years. However, the authors of "anchor modeling" made a huge mistake here, as I showed in the examples above. I am writing about this to highlight the importance of this plagiarism.

I would also like to highlight the following information. As far as I know bitemporal data has been patented to one person from Microsoft. However, I think a colleague of mine who worked with me at the same company, he solved bitemporal data first but did not patent it.

I solved this problem for ntemporal data. So note that my database solution can solve the general case, which is ntemporal data. In fact my database solution can solve much more then „temporal data“.

In next section labeled 2, I'm going to show that authors of "anchor modeling" use „data warehouse“ as a mask to hide their plagiarism of my paper.

2. Application of "anchor modeling" to date warehouses

The authors of "anchor modeling", in the introduction to their paper, show a great misunderstanding of database theory. In the introduction to their paper, they write that "Maintaining and evolving data warehouses is complex ..."

What they call "complex" is "complex" for beginners. Any professional-level database is "in constant changes", "evolving", "has modifications"., "Track changes" ...

The authors of "anchor modeling", at the beginning of their paper, wrote that "anchor modeling" was a technique for data warehousing.

In my opinion the aim of these authors was general database theory, that is, the most important results are at stake. Note that at the end of their paper, the authors show the advantages of "anchor modeling" over existing data models: They mentioned Data Warehousing, Conceptual modeling, ORM, ER, UML, Temporal Databases, Relational Model ...

*************************************************************************

In their second paper, Anchor Modeling - Agile Information Modeling in Evolving Data Environments, the authors write in the abstract section, page one, the following: "We ... show how anchor models can be realized as relational databases." In this paper, they define the main structure of the "Historized Attribute":

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 7 (Historized Attributes) A historized attribute BH is a string. A historized attribute

BH has an anchor A for domain, a data type D for Range, and a time type as time range. An extension of a historized attribute BH is a relation over I x D x T.

(Published in DKE, Editor in Chief Peter Chen)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know Relational model does not has „Anchor“ !!!

In this small section above, authors presented that Relational Model is a kind of „special case“ for „anchor modeling“

***************************************************************************

Now I will show how this plagiarism is cunningly constructed, so it is hard to see that it is a great plagiarism:

1. The authors of "anchor modeling" showed only their paper which they called "anchor modeling ".

2. They have not shown the most important part of their solution. To be more precise, authors of "anchor modeling" didn't show the folowing: "data-warehouse-key".

3. They have not shown what the whole looks like because the whole is a brutal plagiarism of my paper, that is, the following is not shown: "Data Warehouse" + "Anchor modeling".

The authors of "anchor modeling" did the deception here and they only presented "anchor modeling". The main part of this plagirism is the way how all changes of an entity are linked to a "data-warehouse-key" You can note that "anchor key" is surrogate key, that means "anchor key" is not in the real world. That is the reason why "anchor key" is not identifier.

The authors of "anchor modeling" did the trick here and only showed theory from paper which they called "anchor modeling".

They did not show how they connect their „anchor modeling“ with "date warehouse". They did not show how they connect the anchor key(that is the surrogate key) with the real world.

Now, I will demonstrate these assertion with a specific example: I will take the most important structure from „anchor modeling“. To je Hatt(C, D, T) which they called "historized attribute."

It's a very bad copy of my atomic structures.

C is a surrogate key. The authors of "anchor modeling" called this key "anchor". D is attribut.

T is time.

Roughly speaking, this is the basis of "anchor modeling". It is an atomic structure because it has only one attribute. By the way I have shown that the structure of Hatt (C, D, T) is incorrect. (see example 1, example 2, example 3 in this post where I showed that

Hatt (C, D, T) is incorrect.)

Anchor C is a surrogate key! Now I will show this schematically:

My solution:

----------------

I have the identifier of the entity and the identifier of the state of an entity. I bind all states (or changes) of one entity to the identifier of the entity.

---------------

Anchor solution:

-------------------

They bind all changes of one entity to the „data-warehouse-key“.

As you can see it is blatant plagiarism.

------------------

As you can see, here authors of „anchor modeling“ use „data-warehouse-key“ as mask. Using this mask the authors of "anchor modeling" hide their plagiarism of my paper. So data warehouse has no scientific role to play here, it has a role to cover up the plagiarism of my paper.

-------------------

As you can see from the above two schemes - which I named „My solution" and "Anchor solution" - this is a brutal plagiarism of the most important ideas, which the reader does not see if he is looking only at "anchor modeling" paper.

Only when you take the data warehouse - then you get what the data warehouse does. I would like to point out once again that anchor modeling itself is a brutal plagiarism of my paper. So complete plagiarism is Data Warehouse + "anchor modeling". Note that my solution is a solution of general character.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the plagiarism of my solution, my solution is much better than anchor plagiarism. In other words, my solution contains “Anchor modeling as an insignificant part. I will give three examples:

1. In my solution, I was able to introduce a construct so that my key of an entity is always a simple key. Note that my key is an "the identifier of an entity". No one on this group asked me how I got it, so I didn't explain it. Obviously the authors of „anchor modeling“ took the

data-warehouse-key because they didn't understand how I got the identifier of the entity.

In most cases, the data warehouse key is a very complex key.

2. My database solution does not even need such a huge structure called data warehause.

3. My solution has only "atomic structures". Atomic structures are special story and powerful tool, incomparably more powerful than data warehouses. They allow me to build large databases, if you want there can be thousands of atomic structures, you can call them the small world.

************************************************************************

I divided the previous part of this post into two parts. The reason is that for a long time I did not realize that this plagiarism was done professionally. So I used to jump from one topic to another. I have now organized it into units so that people can understand it more easily. Zato je ovaj post podjeljen u tri dijela koji predstavljaju cijelinu. These sections are marked with 1,2,3 and the corresponding text heading.

3. The third part, which I would call the big mistakes of the authors of "anchor modeling" in the important and large areas for database software.

On this user group, in my thread „Anchor Modeling“ has no history, at all , posted on August 7, 2018 on this user group, I presented two big mistakes in „anchor modeling“:

1.

By using "Anchor Modeling," you can do crime with data just by applying „Anchor modeling technology“.

2.

In my second post, in this thread „Anchor Modeling“ has no history, at all

I would like to point out that in "Anchor modeling" each erroneous data "MUST"

be deleted. In the "Anchor modeling" it is not possible to keep erroneous data

and corrected data. "Anchor modeling" can not maintain history of erroneous

data. So, "Anchor modeling" has no history, at all.

3.

"anchor modeling" can not solve very important part in database theory described in this post, section „Atomic data structures“, look at example 1, example 2, example 3.

These 3 areas, mentioned in this section, are a big part of database theory. They also mean that the authors of "anchor modeling" did plagiarize my papers. Because not knowing these three areas means not knowing much about databases.

Vladimir Odrljin

May 3, 2020, 5:42:39 PM5/3/20

to

On September 17, 2005 I posted on my web site www.dbdesign10.com

the following text: "Some ideas about a new data model" .
I will only present section 1.1 of this text:

***************************************************************************

1.1 Construction of Conceptual Model

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 symbol Ack. 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.

**************************************************************************

According to this small text I posted on my website, it is immediately apparent that I am "tying" all changes of one entity to the identifier of the entity. This is exactly what the authors of "anchors modeling" wrote many years later and called it "anchor modeling".

On September 23, 2005, I posted the following text in the following thread „Database design, Keys and some other things“ on this user group. These examples in this thread are from my web site www.dbdesign10.com

*************************************************************************

Here is a simple example about two entities and one relationship - Car,

Person and Owner. It tries to describe more realistically Real World

situations. A car had its color changed twice. In the Real World

attributes are often changed. In another entity, the person Mary

changed her last name because she got married. In the relationship

Owner it can happen that one person buys the same car twice during a

period of time. It can also happen that two entities can be in the same

relationship many times. So,I believe that this new approach is more

appropriate.

Given the table Car :

CarKey CarID Make Color ...

______________________________________________________

...

23 vin1 Buick silver ...

24 vin1 Buick blue ...

25 vin1 Buick red ...

26 vin2 Honda silver ...

27 vin3 Ford black ...

...

In the Car table VIN = Vehicle Identification Number

Now, let Person be the following table:

PersonKey PersonID PersonName ...

_______________________________________________________

...

208 ssn1 Mary Jones ...

209 ssn1 Mary Adams ...

210 ssn2 John Stewart ...

...

In the Person table SSN = Social Security Number

Then the relationship Owner, which is the act of owning a car, can have

the following values:

OwnerKey Person Key CarKey Year ...

___________________________________________

...

54 210 26 2003 ...

55 210 24 2004 ...

56 210 26 2005 ...

...

More details about this example can be found on my website

www.dbdesign10.com

where I gave a new definition of Key and tried to develop a new Data

Model.

*********************************************************************************************************

In the text from my web site and in the text posted on this user group, specific examples are given of how to create a completely new database theory. A group of Swedish scientists completely plagiarized this idea and my work and presented it as their work. This plagiarism was done 5 years after the publication of my work and after many years of discussion about my solution on this user group.

These two examples (my website and my discussion on this user group) clearly show that "anchor modeling" is plagiarism. My database model presentation can be viewed by anyone in the world, anywhere in the world at any time. I want to say that I was completely open in the presentation of my data model.

This is clearly indicated by the dates when my paper was published and the dates of these discussions on this user group.

Vladimir Odrljin

May 10, 2020, 4:37:14 PM5/10/20

to

In their second paper, the authors made mistakes in defining important database expressions.

I will present only a few initial definitions that are the basis of "anchor modeling":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

2.1. Anchors

An anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events.

Definition 4 (Anchor). An anchor A is a string. An extension of an anchor is a subset of ID .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will consider "Identities" first. This term was created by software vendors. In fact, software vendors have produced an "identity column." "Anchor key" is a surrogate key. Surrogate key is a bad solution for databases. From the point of view of database theory, the surrogate key makes no sense. Let us mention that the notion of identity gives rise to many philosophical, mathematical and logical problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I presented in this thread we use Leibniz Law (Identity indiscernibles) to determine entities. There are no "surrogates" in Leibniz Law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identity is a term that is not defined at all. In fact, "entity" is one of the fundamental concepts in the fundamental sciences. The identity is a fundamental part of every entity. Based on the above, the term „identity of an entity” is not defined at all. Obviously the authors of "anchor modeling" want to present themselves as those who work hard to determine the identity of objects.

Another important term is "anchor". It is a term that is not defined at all. The authors of "anchor modeling" describe "anchor" as follows: "An anchor represents a set of entity, such as a set of actors or events." However, in set theory there is no such thing as a "set of entities" or a "set of actors" or a "set of events"!

In Definition 4, the authors wrote the following: "An extension of an anchor is a subset of ID". Definition 1 states that ID set is used as identities. It follows from the previous two sentences that the elements of an extension of an anchor are used as identities. As I wrote the word "identity of entity" is not defined.

But what matters here is that the anchor key and identities are surrogate keys.

In their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" claim that their model is more general than traditional conceptual modeling techniques and write the following: „Even though the origin of Anchor Modeling were requirements found in data warehouse environments, the techniques is a generic modeling approach also suitable for other types of systems. An Anchor model is realized as a relational database schema will have a high degree of normalization, provide reuse of data, offer the ability to store historical data, as well, as have the benefits which Anchor Modeling brings into a data warehouse. The relationship between anchor modeling and traditional conceptual modeling techniques for relational databases, such as ER, EER, UML, and ORM is described in Section 10.“

The authors of mentioned paper write “how anchors models can be realized as relational databases with examples of schema evolution.” It seems that Relational model is a special case of „anchor modeling“.

In the following definition, they present their main data structure:

Definition 7 (Historized Attribute) A Historized Attribute BH is a string. A historized attribute BH has an anchor A for domain, a data type D for rang, and a time type T as time range. An extension of a historized attribute BH is a relation over ID x D x T .

This is the most important data structure in their Relational Model. However, the relational model does not have "anchor" nor surrogates. It seems to me that the authors of “anchor modeling” (and also Peter Chen) do not understand that the Relational Model is much more than a set of relationships.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Relational Model uses a language when it comes to Propositional Logic, Predicate Logic, and Semantics. Authors of „anchor modeling“ and Peter Chen did not notice that surrogates do not belong to any language. These are a basic things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vladimir Odrljin

I will present only a few initial definitions that are the basis of "anchor modeling":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

2.1. Anchors

An anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events.

Definition 4 (Anchor). An anchor A is a string. An extension of an anchor is a subset of ID .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will consider "Identities" first. This term was created by software vendors. In fact, software vendors have produced an "identity column." "Anchor key" is a surrogate key. Surrogate key is a bad solution for databases. From the point of view of database theory, the surrogate key makes no sense. Let us mention that the notion of identity gives rise to many philosophical, mathematical and logical problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I presented in this thread we use Leibniz Law (Identity indiscernibles) to determine entities. There are no "surrogates" in Leibniz Law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identity is a term that is not defined at all. In fact, "entity" is one of the fundamental concepts in the fundamental sciences. The identity is a fundamental part of every entity. Based on the above, the term „identity of an entity” is not defined at all. Obviously the authors of "anchor modeling" want to present themselves as those who work hard to determine the identity of objects.

Another important term is "anchor". It is a term that is not defined at all. The authors of "anchor modeling" describe "anchor" as follows: "An anchor represents a set of entity, such as a set of actors or events." However, in set theory there is no such thing as a "set of entities" or a "set of actors" or a "set of events"!

In Definition 4, the authors wrote the following: "An extension of an anchor is a subset of ID". Definition 1 states that ID set is used as identities. It follows from the previous two sentences that the elements of an extension of an anchor are used as identities. As I wrote the word "identity of entity" is not defined.

But what matters here is that the anchor key and identities are surrogate keys.

In their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" claim that their model is more general than traditional conceptual modeling techniques and write the following: „Even though the origin of Anchor Modeling were requirements found in data warehouse environments, the techniques is a generic modeling approach also suitable for other types of systems. An Anchor model is realized as a relational database schema will have a high degree of normalization, provide reuse of data, offer the ability to store historical data, as well, as have the benefits which Anchor Modeling brings into a data warehouse. The relationship between anchor modeling and traditional conceptual modeling techniques for relational databases, such as ER, EER, UML, and ORM is described in Section 10.“

The authors of mentioned paper write “how anchors models can be realized as relational databases with examples of schema evolution.” It seems that Relational model is a special case of „anchor modeling“.

In the following definition, they present their main data structure:

Definition 7 (Historized Attribute) A Historized Attribute BH is a string. A historized attribute BH has an anchor A for domain, a data type D for rang, and a time type T as time range. An extension of a historized attribute BH is a relation over ID x D x T .

This is the most important data structure in their Relational Model. However, the relational model does not have "anchor" nor surrogates. It seems to me that the authors of “anchor modeling” (and also Peter Chen) do not understand that the Relational Model is much more than a set of relationships.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Relational Model uses a language when it comes to Propositional Logic, Predicate Logic, and Semantics. Authors of „anchor modeling“ and Peter Chen did not notice that surrogates do not belong to any language. These are a basic things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vladimir Odrljin

Aug 12, 2020, 4:35:44 AM8/12/20

to

> I would also like to highlight the following information. As far as I know bitemporal data has been patented to one person from Microsoft. However, I think a colleague of mine who worked with me at the same company, he solved bitemporal data first but did not patent it.

> I solved this problem for ntemporal data. So note that my database solution can solve the general case, which is ntemporal data. In fact my database solution can solve much more then „temporal data“.

>

bi-temporal data is. However Microsoft has not given how bi-temporal data should be solved. Only my solution solves bi-temporal data. My solution is the only one that also solves n-temporal data. No one else can solve bi-temporal data, ..., n-temporal data.

Vladimir Odrljin

Sep 9, 2020, 4:45:52 AM9/9/20

to

The definition of truth so far have not taken a number of aspects regarding true of propositions. In my data model it is possible to determine truth in the past, present and future. Even more, in my data model there are precise procedures for determining truth in the present, past, future, procedures for history of data and for some other important areas.

Someone can write down a false proposition or give false information about an entity. People who workk with databases know that propositions can be inaccurate,errorneus, that can be part of crime, etc.

Databases significantly expand the notion of truth to a large amount of data and to a number of other aspects. All these cases, from point of view of truth are precisely determined in my solution. Today's databases are large, sometimes global with large amount of very important data.

On this occasion , I would like to remind on the following three most famous definitions of truth.

Aristotle’s definition of truth

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that is not, is true.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frege’s construction of truth

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth--value of a proposition is determined by its form and the semantic properties of its constituents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tarski began his work on the definition of truth sometime around 1930.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the period from 1940 to 1960, Tarski and his colleagues accept Model Theory as the best approach to problem of truth. Model Theory began the study of formal languages and their interpretation. But today, Model Theory is the study of the interpretation of any language, formal or natural, with Tarski’s definition of truth.

Very important concept of Model Theory is the satisfaction relation or the definition of mathematical truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote about these three definitions to show the magnitude, scale and importance of this plagiarism when it comes to the definition of truth.

Vladimir Odrljin

Someone can write down a false proposition or give false information about an entity. People who workk with databases know that propositions can be inaccurate,errorneus, that can be part of crime, etc.

Databases significantly expand the notion of truth to a large amount of data and to a number of other aspects. All these cases, from point of view of truth are precisely determined in my solution. Today's databases are large, sometimes global with large amount of very important data.

On this occasion , I would like to remind on the following three most famous definitions of truth.

Aristotle’s definition of truth

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that is not, is true.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frege’s construction of truth

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth--value of a proposition is determined by its form and the semantic properties of its constituents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tarski began his work on the definition of truth sometime around 1930.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the period from 1940 to 1960, Tarski and his colleagues accept Model Theory as the best approach to problem of truth. Model Theory began the study of formal languages and their interpretation. But today, Model Theory is the study of the interpretation of any language, formal or natural, with Tarski’s definition of truth.

Very important concept of Model Theory is the satisfaction relation or the definition of mathematical truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote about these three definitions to show the magnitude, scale and importance of this plagiarism when it comes to the definition of truth.

Vladimir Odrljin

Sep 28, 2020, 5:06:20 AM9/28/20

to

The authors of “anchor modeling” present their main ideas in section 2.1 in their first award-winning paper.

Section 2.1 begins as follows:

„An Anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events.

Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this small section 2.1, where the authors define the main terms of their database model, there is a lot of nonsense.

For example, there is no set of entities and set of actors or set of events as claimed by the authors of "Anchor modeling". These are the basic things from set theory. We do not place physical objects or events in sets.

In the title of this best and award-winning paper is the following text "..using Sixth Normal Form ...". However no one can use 6NF because it is just a name. The authors of 6NF have not shown what is important here and that is how to bring the relation into 6NF. This is actually about atomic data structures and how to get them, and that is the most important question in database theory. I will now quote the definition of 6NF as defined by the authors of 6NF:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

„Definition: Relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it satisfies no nontrivial JDs at all.

Equivalently, a „regular“ relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key, plus at most one additional attribute.“

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From this definition of 6NF it is clear that 6NF is just another name for atomic data structures.

Note that the authors of Anchor modeling in section 2.1 write “an anchor represent a set of entities ...” and refer to 6NF in the title of this paper. 6NF is from the Relational model. It follows from the above that the „anchor model“ is at the same time the Entity-Relationship model because the main term “anchor” is defined as a set of entities and the Relational model because it uses 6NF.

However the biggest nonsense in this section 2.1 of Anchor modeling is Def 1. In Def 1 from section 2.1 the authors define “Identities”. However, "Identities" is known to be an undefined term. Some of the authors of Object Oriented Programming have introduced the term "Identity" for entities. They "believe" or have a "feeling" that each object has an "identity." An identity in object oriented programming, describes the property of objects that distinguishes them from other objects.

It is not possible to use undefined expressions in database theory. This is the main reason that there are no successful object oriented databases in practice.

In the above-mentioned section 2.1 in "Def 2", the authors of "anchor modeling" define their main term "anchor" which is based on undefined "identities". That is also nonsense.

However, the authors of "anchor modeling" introduce a new term in their second paper. They introduce an "Identifier" for relationships for entities. The identifier of relationship is the most complex. It’s plagiarism of my papers.

I developed the theory of identification much earlier and published it in 2005 on this user group on September 23, 2005 in the thread "Database design, Keys and some other things" and presented on my website: www.dbdesign10.com At the very beginning of this my website in section 1, I introduced identifiers instead of keys. I also introduced the notion of identification. The notion of identification in my theory is the most elementary level of truth. So I don't really have the keys. Identifiers have only one field.

I have identification of attributes, identification of entities, identification of relationships and identification of states of entities and relationships.

I accidentally discovered "anchor modeling" on the Internet. On May 26, 2010, I started my thread "The original version" about the great plagiarism in "anchor modeling" - on this user group.

As far as I know, the authors of "anchor modeling" submitted their second paper on October 5, 2010, and it was published in December 2010, in the journal DKE, by the editor-in-chief Peter Chen. I want to point out that only 4 months have passed from my post on plagiarism in “anchor modeling” to the publication of another “anchor” paper in DKE. In this second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" also made large plagiarisms of my solutions. I have already written about it in this thread, so it is not necessary to write about it again.

Vladimir Odrljin

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Nov 9, 2020, 2:06:06 AM11/9/20

to

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

„Anchor Modeling - An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data“

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper won first prize at the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling: Conceptual Modeling – ER 2009. Honorary President Peter Chen presented a paper „The Thirty Years of ER Conferences: Milestones, Achievements and future Directions“ at this event

(a) In section 1 in their first paper, the authors write the following: „An anchor model is a

relation database schema“.

(b) In section 2.1, the authors write „An anchor represents set of entities“

(c) In section 2.1, (Identities) in „Def 1“ the authors write: Let ID be an infinite set of

symbols, which are used as identities.

(d) In section 2.1, (Anchor) in „Def 2“ the authors write: An anchor A(C) is a table with one
column. The domain of C is ID . The primary key for A is C.

In point (a), the authors argue that their model is a relation database schema.

In (b), (c) i (d) the authors claim that their model is object oriented.

In my previous post I wrote that the authors of object oriented db use as a fundamental term, „their sense and their intuition“ of „identities“, which of course does not belong into the domain of science.

Based on the above, we can conclude that the authors of „anchor modeling“ use both the relational model and the object oriented model to make their model ???

In fact it seems to me that the authors of „anchor modeling“ have confused the relational model with the object oriented model.

At the beginning of this post, I have shown that the authors of „anchor modeling“ made major mistakes in fundamental things. For example, they put the following text „...using the Sixth Normal Form“ in the title of their award-winning paper.

6NF cannot be used by anyone because it is just a name and it is not solution. The authors of 6NF did not provide any procedure that brings the relation to 6NF. Thus the authors of „anchor modeling“ when they wrote in the title of the paper that they „using the Sixth Normal Form“ actually say they use the name „The Sixth Normal Form“. In my opinion, this title means nothing in database theory.

We can notice that atomic data structures are elementary and more important. This means that atomic data structures are more elementary than „The Sixth Normal Form“.

In my database model I use my theory of identification for atomic structures of data.

This post is about fundamental things that are inaccurate in „anchor modeling“ and because of it „anchor modeling“ is plagiarism.

Vladimir Odrljin

Jan 27, 2021, 6:26:50 AM1/27/21

to

Dana ponedjeljak, 23. prosinca 2019. u 14:50:24 UTC+1 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:

In his paper „The Entity-Relationship Model – Toward a Unified View of Data“ Peter Chen writes about fundamental things in science.

In this paper he wrote about concepts, entities and relationships. In my opinion, Peter Chen should have listed the names of the scientists

who defined the terms such as concept, entity and relationship.

However, Peter Chen does not give a definition of these basic terms. He also does not give the names of authors of these important discoveries in mathematics.

In his paper “The Entity-Relationship Model“ , Peter Chen defines an entity with the following sentence: „An entity is a „thing“ which can be distinctly identified“.

Here the entity is defined using an undefined „thing“.

Since a relationship is defined by using entities, it follows that a „relationship“ is not defined either, because the entity is not defined in Peter Chen definition of the entity.

The authors of „Anchor modeling“ received the first prize at the conference whose name is „Conceptual Modeling – ER 2009“. However Peter Chen in his paper does

not define the concept at all.

It follows from the previous text that the three most important terms in Peter Chen's paper are not defined. These are entities, relationships and concepts.

Gottlob Frege derive mathematical laws from the laws of logic. Frege builds The Theory of Concepts. In1892 he published paper „On Concept and Object“.

This paper connects a concept and objects(entities). In this paper, Frege gives the following example:

-------------

...

We are here saying that something falls under a concept, and the gramatical predicate stands for this concept

...

In the sentence „The Morning Star is planet“ we have a proper name, „the Morning Star“, and a concept word , „planet“.

...

In the above sentence 'proper name' is the name of the object (entity).

--------------

In the small example above, I have tried to show the enormous significance of Frege's Theory of Concepts, Theory of Objects, Predicates, Logic and Semantics

Frege introduces an extension of concept. It's a set. One set is built using objects that „fall“ under a given concept. Frege calls this an extension of the concept.

We can note that the set is not formed by objects, but by the names of the objects.

Frege calls this construction an extension of the concept. Today, instead of the word „extension“ we use the word „set“.

Frege realizes that when we use spoken language, then we give a name of the set. The name determines the individuality. In this way Frege defines a set as a

plurality that is one object. A set is a plurality that is comprehend as a single entity.

In 1892 Frege published another important paper „On Sense and Reference“, which is fundamental for semantics. Frege is the creator of semantics.

Frege realized that mathematical laws could be built from logical laws. I will list only the names of the theories that Frege built and that are used for concepts and entities:

these are Courses-of-Values, Basic Law V, the creation of semantics from scratch, the construction of predicate logic from scratch, the first formal set theory with two axioms,

the formal theory for propositional logic, the formal theory for predicte logic and the theory of thoughts.

In his paper section 2.2.1 Peter Chen writes „There are a predicate associated with each entity sets to test whether an entity belongs to it.“

The above sentence from Peter Chen about predicate and set of entities, raise the following questions:

What does the concept has to do with predicate?

What does the concept has to do with the entity?

What is a concept?

What is an entity?

There are many other fundamental questions, but Peter Chen said nothing about it.

Let us mention that Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic refer to spoken languages while concepts are mental representations. Concepts and predicates

represent a plurality of entities, that is, a set. Propositional logic represents one entity.

I will now present some papers of two probably greatest mathematicians who wrote about entities, relationships and concepts much more clearly and

incomparably better than Peter Chen and presented these papers many years before Peter Chen.

1. In 1944 Kurt Godel wrote the following:

„... 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 (with similar hierarchy for extension).“

2. Gotlob Frege gave the most significant papers, on which today's software is based. Here I will mention only the concepts.

At a time when Frege published these papers there were no computers. I guess there was no using of electric current either.

In my opinion Peter Chen should have cited Godel's and Frege's papers on attributes, entities, relationships and concepts.

I wrote about Frege's and Godel's papers because they are much better when it comes to concepts, entities, and relationships.

Peter Chen did not quote all the above presented resultes from Godel and especially from Frege that I wrote in this post.

I write about this because in the theory from Peter Chen and the theory from authors of „anchor modeling“ there is confusion in the fundamental things.

For example, the authors of „anchor modeling“ claim that entities are changeable. However Peter Chen claims:

„An entity is a „thing“ which can be distinctly identified“. These contradictory claims from the authors of „anchor modeling“ is published in the journal

Data & Knowledge Engineering, DKE for shortcut. The editor-in-chief is Peter Chen.

Authors of „anchor modeling“ use „identities“ as their main term. At the same time they use „identities“ from object-oriented programming,

identities have a fixed value that is not defined. The creators of this term from object-oriented programming have a „feeling“ that the objects have identities.

Of course science cannot rely on „feeling“.

Another important thing is that objects have „changes“. However, according to Peter Chen's definition of an object; that is as follows:

„An entity is a „thing“ which can be distinctly identified“. This means that an object is not a „thing“ that has changes. From here

we can see that Peter Chen's definition of an entity is completely wrong.

By giving the first prize to the paper "Anchor Modeling", two events occur:

1. The first prize is given to the plagiarism of my work.

2. In this way Peter Chen was enabled to correct his fundamental errors regarding entities, relationships and concepts.

Vladimir Odrljin

Feb 17, 2021, 1:50:02 PM2/17/21

to

Since my texts , about plagiarism from the authors of „anchor modeling“ , are scattering in various parts of this user group, I decided to put all important texts under one thread – that is, this thread. The following text has already been displayed on this user group on August 7, 2018 and has the following title: „anchor modeling“ has no history, at all.

In this post I present anchor modeling“ as a big nonsense. What is correct in „anhor modeling“ is the obvious plagiarism of my work. Some important problems can not be solved in „anchor modeling“.

Bellow is text that I posted in this user group on April 7 , 2018.

In a real-world business, errors happen frequently at data entry level. This case is happening on a daily basis. It often happens that data entry generates large amounts of erroneous data. My database solution can solve this problem.

„anchor modeling“ , RM/T and 6NF can not solve this problem. As far as I know only my database solution can solve this ptoblem.

Anyone who uses the „anchor modeling“ database can enter incorrect data. This is possible because the authors of „anchor modeling“ have written that the erroneous data can be deleted.

However, we can consider the following example:

Example

Some math professor gave the best grade to the student who had the worst grade. In this school, professors enter grades in database. This student gave money to the professor for this criminal service. The student managed to enroll at the university using this false grade.

After a summer holiday, the math professor returned to school and he deleted the false grade , then he entered the correct grade in the database. In this school they use „anchor modeling“ database. So the math professor deleted false data as it is proposed and strictly suggested by authors of „anchor modeling“.

This example says that by using „anchor modeling“, you can do crime with data just applying „anchor modeling technology“.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 5.4 the authors of their scientific paper, „anchor modeling“, which won first prize at the World Congress, wrote the following text: „Delete statements are allowed only when applied to remove erroneous data.“

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authors of „anchor modeling“ claim that their data model can maintain a history. However this small example shows that „Anchor modeling“ can not maintain history.

As „anchor modeling“ allows deletion of data, then „anchor modeling“ has all the operation with the data, that is : adding new data, deleting data and update data. Update can be obtained by using two operations: first delete the data, then add new data. This further means that „anchor modeling“ has no history. This also means that the authors of “anchor modeling” do not understand the topic they are writing about at all. That is why "anchor modeling" is plagiarism.

Vladimir Odrljin

Mar 26, 2021, 11:43:39 PM3/26/21

to

Dana ponedjeljak, 23. prosinca 2019. u 14:50:24 UTC+1 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:

good database design is not possible without any of them. This my solution are available on my following websites: www.dbdesign.com and www.dbdesign11.com

These theories are mathematical theories, meaning these are theories of general character, it is not a technical software from some company.

The first of these theories that has been built is the theory of atomic data structures. This means the following: what are the basic building blocks of data and informations.

1. Theory of atomic data structures.

Atomic data structures are actually attributes of entities.

The most famous attempts to construct atomic data structures are 6NF by C. Date & H. Darwen and the Surrogate key by Edgar Codd. These two attempts to obtain atomic data

structures are unsuccessful.

In my database theory, there is only one operation with data, it is „add data to database“.

I have given examples in two well-known user groups , that by using „anchor modeling“ you can make criminal actions.

2. Theory of events that are related to atomic data

There are only two events related to atomic data. It is the event of the beginning of a state from some atomic data structure and the event of the termination of some atomic data

structure. In other terms it is about new states and about „closing“ existing states of atomic data structures.

3. Theory of identification

In existing database theory, it is common to work with keys. I introduced the new theory of identification of attributes, entities, and relationships. Instead of "keys" I use my Theory of

Identification.

4. Theory of states of entities and relationships

States of entities and states of relationships have been introduced. Also identifiers of states of entities and identifiers of states of relationships have been introduced. This theory is

relate to temporal data and some other important data from some important theories. (Here I use the old Latin word „identifier“)

5. Theory of n-temporal data

Date, Darwen and Lorentzos tried to solve bi-temporal data. However, not much of the significant bi-temporal data has been done here.

For example, they did not present a solution for the erroneous data.

6. Theory of changes of entities and changes of relationships

How to formalize the following: that the changed entity is again that entity. This is a difficult problem. Simply put, my solution is usage a single (fixed) identifier of an entity, even though

this entity has changed over time. All changes of entities I treat as other entities but which are special states from the corressponding original entity. Each state of an entity has its own

identifier of the state of the entity. In this way I bind all its changes to the original entity from the database by using identifier of an entity and identifiers of states of the entity.

Authors of „Anchor modeling“ wrote a paper that is plagiarism of my paper. This part of my post in this section 6, they called „anchor modeling“ (as all changes of an object are tied to

one „anchor“) and they plagiarized the very important part of my paper.

I have answered all the questions of the users of this group.

I posted my solutions (that is my papers) on my two websites and on this user group.

I have presented to this user group that this is one of the very important problem.

In philosophy, this problem is called „Ship of Theseus“. This problem consists in the following: how and why people see an object, which has changed many of its attributes, as the

same object. How man perceives it as one and the same object. In my opinion, the importance of my solution is that my solution is in fact a representation of the real mental procedure.

So it is not solved by using a theorems, rather it is solved by using mental procedures.

7. Mental procedures and mental representations.

I built my solution and mathematical approach for mental procedures and mental representation. In my opinion, this is a new kind of mathematics. This mathematical theory is not

about proofs, rather it is about the construction of abstract objects.

I called it a mathematical solution for mental procedures and mental representation. In my opinion this is about specific data organizations in databases in terms of organizing that

data in human memory by applying appropriate mental procedures and represent it in human memory as a mental representations.

So in my previous point 6, in this post, I used data organization for mathematical presentation of changes in objects and changes in relationships.

With help of data organization, I solved the issue of an effective procedure here, which I called „mental procedure“. My name „mental procedure“ refers to a man's „mental procedures“

that are realized using „mental representation“ in the problems of data organization and data representation.

In my opinion, all changes in human memory, regarding entities and relationships we realized through mental procedures and represent it into mental representation.

This mental representation of all the changes of one entity, I present in the database as all the changes that are related to one identifier of the entity. I still need all the identifiers of the

states of this entity. Therefore, I bind the identifier of this entity to all identifiers of the states of this entity and put it in the database.

As I have already written, mental representation and mental procedures - they are at the level of our (human) memory - correspond to my databases. Editing database memory and

representing changes of enties with the help of database memory organization, in my opinion , correspond to mental procedure. This is how I explain the connection between „human

memory“ and databases, for these complex cases. We can notice that mental representation corresponds to the concepts.

8. At this point 8, there is an important and unusual part of database theory, which is perhaps the most significant part of my database theory. Since no one has asked me about these

problems and how they are saved in my db theory, I have not explained this theory in my explanations on this user group.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I first presented my database theory at this user group. It was on September 23, 2005. The name of that thread is „Database design, Keys and some other things“. In that thread I wrote

the name of my website where I presented the results of my database theory. The name of this website is www.dbdesign10.com . In 2008, I created another website in which I

presented my new results. The name of this website is www.dbdesign11.com where there was also a great user discussion and where I always answered every question. So, users of

this group can see my database theory and can see the discussion on the user group, from 2005 until today. In the first 5 years there was a huge discussion about my database theory

on this user group in which I explained my database solution. My answering on questions posted by various users turned into full time job for me because my knowledge of English was

very poor and I am not talented in languages. Quite by accident, I found out about „Anchor modelling“. You can still see all this discussion today.

The first seven points in this post, which I marked with numbers from 1 to 7, were plagiarized by the authors of „anchor modeling“. What they have not plagiarized in these seven points

is sometimes ignorance and sometimes even misunderstanding of basic things.

For example, in their first paper, which won first prize at the most important Conference on Conceptual Modeling – ER 2009, the following was written as the title:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anchor Modeling

An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no man in the world who can „using sixth normal form“. 6NF is just another name for atomic data structures. 6NF does not say how to obtain atomic data structures, which is

the only important thing for this 6NF.

From this title of their paper, which includes 6NF, it is immediately apparent that the authors of „anchor modeling“ do not understand the basic things of databases. I was amazed that

a scientific paper with a title like this won first prize at an international conference. Let us mention that „atomic data structure“ are the most important topic for more than one science.

Another example of a nonsense in „anchor modeling“ is their the most important data structure defined as „Def 1“ in their award-winning paper:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Def 1 (identities) Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is known that the surrogate key is nonsense in database theory. „Identities“ from this Def1 are „surrogate keys“.

In this post I wrote about these two nonsense because it is proof that the authors of „anchor modeling“ do not understand the basics in database theory.

Regarding their notion of „identities“, the authors of „anchor modeling“ write in section 2.1 that „an anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events“. This is

nonsense because we do not put entities, actors or events in sets.

In my points 6 and 7, in this post I wrote the most important part of this plagiarism from the authors of „anchor modeling“.

On my website www.dbdesign10.com which was set up in 2005, I presented my database solution.

At the very beginning of section 1.1 from this my website, I wrote the following 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.........every entity has an attribute which is the Identifier of the entity or can provide identification of

the entity...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the previous few sentences, several fundamental theories of great importance have been initiated and introduced.

1. I do not use „key". „anchor modeling“ uses keys.

2. I introduce identifiers – this is the beginning of my Theory of identification.

3. I linked the identifiers i.e. the operation with the linked identifiers was constructed. For

example, I associated an identifier of an entity and an identifier of a state of that entity.

4. Identifiers are very different from „surrogates“

5. Identifiers are very different from keys.

6. I introduced the Theory of identification. You do not need a spoken language for

identification.

7. I introduced the Theory of states.

8. Atomic data structure are enabled, that is, it is possible to work with only one attribute.

This means it is possible to work with temporal data, metadata,... ,that is, data on the level of atomic data structure.

Note that Codd, Date and Darwen as well as some other groups tried to get decomposition

of data into atomic data structures - unsuccessful.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first paper from „anchor modeling“ there is not a word about identifiers and not a word about states. Without identifiers there are no atomic structures of data and there is no

„anchor“. Also without states there are no atomic structures and there is no „anchor“.

So the first paper about „anchor modeling“, which won first prize at the most important conference for data and databases , is fundamentally wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to identifiers and states, the first paper of „anchor modeling“ is inaccurate because of other mistakes that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

When I started writing about plagiarism, which I called „anchor modeling“ after a shrt period of several months, the authors of „anchor modeling“ published another paper in the journal

DKE, Editor-in-Chief Peter Chen. He did not respond to my letter

In their second paper, the authors of „ anchor modeling“ introduced identifiers in definition 16 and they introduced „states“ in the section „4.5 Modeling State“.

However, in the first paper, the authors of „anchor modeling“ use the term „key“. Also they did not use states in their first paper !? The authors of „anchor modeling“ very quickly published their second paper in jornal where Peter Chen is the editor. There they tried to correct the mistakes I wrote about in this user group.

So to summarize , the first paper of „anchor modeling“ is brutal plagiarism of my paper. After my critique on this user group, the authors of „anchor modeling“ publish their second

paper in which they continue to plagiarize my papers.

I will now return to my theory of identification. Let „I“ be abbreviation the word „identification“ . I have the following identifications:

1. I(events) - identification of events.

Like I said there are only two events in my database. One event is the entry of new data. The second event is the termination of the existing data in database. These two events are all

events in my theory of database.

2. I(attributes) - identification of attributes

Attributes are atomic elements in my theory of databases. Identification of atomic elements d Users can associate to an attribute times information and anything what is real

information relating to an atomic attributes.

3. I(entities) - identification of entities:

For this type of identification I use the identifier of the entity.

4. I(relationships ) - identification of relationships

For this type of identification I use the identifier of the relationship.

5. I(states) - identification of states of entities(relationships).

For this type of identification I use the identifier of the state.

We can see that truth can be determined by using my theory of identification. That means that logic is based on the identification. For examle, the truth value of the next sentence:

„John Smith has blue eyes“ we can determine on the following procedure: We must identify the entity John Smith and we must identify the color of his eyes. These two identifications,

for the name and for the color of eyes, we must do in the real world. Then we must check it in our database. In fact, the theory of identification enables that a machine can determine

truth values.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, Apple is the first company to achieve a value of 2 trillion dollars. That happened in mid-2020. The same vallue was achieved by Microsoft around new year 2021. Apple

and Microsoft belong to the software industry. So software is the number one industry. I want to point out the magnitude of this plagiarism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me now give examples of atomic identifications.

Example 1. Let a dog remember 3000 smells. This allows him to follow another dog's by „smell“. In this case, „smell“ is an identifier.

Example 2. Molecules are joined using a spatial form. In this case, the „spatial form“ is the atomic identifier.

Note that in the process of identification, there is no language and logic.

Vladimir Odrljin

Jun 24, 2021, 12:29:50 PM6/24/21

to

Vladimir Odrljin

Jul 13, 2021, 5:12:33 AM7/13/21

to

Jul 13, 2021, 5:30:28 AM7/13/21

to

Dana ponedjeljak, 23. prosinca 2019. u 14:50:24 UTC+1 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:

Of course, we do not use undefined terms in science. Undefined terms in science are nonsense. That is why the basic term in “ancor modeling“ is nonsense. This nonsense is called „identity“.

This phenomenon began to move from „object-oriented programming“ to database theory. This has been started by „scientists“ who do not understand database theory. In „object-oriented programming (OOP is a shortcut), the term „object identity“ was introduced. However, the notion of the identity of a real object from the real world has nothing to do with the identity of an object from object-oriented programming. In DB theory there are not only real objects, but there are also „images“ of real objects in human memory and in DB memory. These three objects (an object from the real world, „images“ of real objects in human memory, and DB memory from human memory, are connected. This connection between „the real world object“ and „the abstract world object“ in human memory is something that belongs to the most complex areas. This part, the authors of „anchor modeling“ did not understand. They inserted the idea of identity from the OOP into the DB – which is a great mistake and nonsense.

„anchor modeling“ was named the best paper at the most important database conference in the world. However, their main term „identity“ is not defined.

In definition 1, at the beginning of their awarded paper, authors of „anchor modeling“ wrote:

Definition 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.

Because „identities“ are surrogates, then that means that „identities“ are nonsense.

I will now present one example: In the year 2020 company Honda has produced 100000 cars of the type „Civic“. All of these 100000 entities have the same attributes (the color is the same, the same engine, ...)

If you now create a database with surrogate keys, then your database will have 100000 „entities“ and all these entities have the same attributes but different „identities“. In my opinion, this is nonsense.

By the way, in the award-winning paper „anchor modeling“, on page 2 there is the following sentence: „An anchor model is a relational database schema...“.

Also on page 2 in section 2.1 authors say „An anchor represents a set of entities...“.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a whole collection of database theories, which has more or less some connection with objects. One such group is UML, ORM, OMT. In the second group is MongoDB.

The third group is IDEF1X – This is actually an abbreviation for the collection IDEF0, IDEF1, IDEF2, IDEF3,... which has been evolving for many years. Scientists from the group IDEF1X have been developing a whole collection of DB theories for decades. This kind of work actually means the following: since „IDEF1X – a collection of DB theories“ has been improving for years, then these scientists consider each version of their theory to be temporary. And that means that this theory is incorrect – of course, such „theories“ do not belong to science. As far as I know, Peter Chen also worked in this group of scientists.

In IDEF1X collections of theories, the key is defined as follows:

„ A key is a group of attributes that uniquely identify an entity instance.“ However, my example with „Honda Civic“ from this post, says that this definition is not correct.

Another major area that scientists have not solved is the problem of changes of an object(entity) during the „life“ of that object(entity). Note that if one entity changes over time, then it cannot have some identity. In my theory, this scientific field is completely solved.

The third major area that scientists have not solved is the problem of the decomposition of objects(entities) into atomic data structures.

In my theory, the problems mentioned above are solved, long time ago.

Vladimir Odrljin.

Aug 4, 2021, 6:34:46 AM8/4/21

to

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:

1. Sixth normal form or 6NF as an abbreviation.

Relvar is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key, plus at most one additional attribute.

What is this all about?

This is not about normal forms.

Atomic data structures are more important than "normal forms".

Here we have two names for one scientific paper. The meanings of these two names differ significantly.

The first name is: "Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for

Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data". This name is presented in Brazil at the International

Conference on Conceptual Modeling ER 2009, and at Springer, which presents all scientific conferences.

The second name is "Anchor modeling". That name was presented by the authors on Wikipedia, recently,

in the „Reference“ section.

.

Here is the problem in the part of the text that is in the title. In the original version, their scientific paper

has the following part of the text in the title: "using the Sixth Normal Form".

Sixth Normal Form (6NF for short cut) is a failed attempt to obtain "atomic data structures", which is a

basic problem of database theory.

However, even with the most careful study of the definition of 6NF, no one can obtain data atomic

structures based on the definition of 6NF. 6NF is just a name.

So the authors of “anchor modeling” in the title of their award-winning scientific paper wrote,

“using the sixth normal form” which is nonsense because 6NF doesn’t show at all how to get

atomic data structures. This nonsense with 6NF in the title of their paper is the reason why the authors

changed the title of their award-winning paper.

Every database professional knows that the best solution is a structure that has a key and one attribute.

So we do not need 6NF. We need decomposition on atomic data structures.

The real reason why the authors of "anchor modeling" changed the title of their scientific paper is

this great nonsense „using 6NF“, which the authors of "anchor modeling" put in the title of their

scientific paper. I posted this nonsense earlier in this thread.

As you can see the decomposition on atomic data structures is only solved in my scientific papers.

Vladimir Odrljin

Aug 13, 2021, 6:21:15 AM8/13/21

to

"Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and

Temporally Evolving Data". This title is presented in Brazil at the International Conference on Conceptual
Modeling ER 2009, and at Springer, which presents all scientific conferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the title of the paper that was declared the best at the "International Conference" in 2009.

This title is nonsense, because no one can "using the Sixth Normal Form".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors of 6NF did not provide any effective procedure that brings the data structures into 6NF.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the effective procedure is only what is important in "Sixth Normal Form". Authors of 6NF

did not give any solution for 6NF. Authors of 6NF give only another name for atomic data structures.

That name is „Sixth normal form“.

That is why the treatment of authors from "anchor modeling" is nonsense.

The authors of "anchor modeling" bluffed that "6NF" can make atomic data structures.

The authors of 6NF defined with the following definition "Sixth normal form":

Definition: Relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it satisfies no nontrivial JDs at all.

Note that the authors of 6NF gave 6NF for non temporal relvars. However, authors of „anchor modeling“
use temporal data and in same time use 6NF.

Note that E. F. Codd also bluffed, that he solved “atomic data structures”. In his paper:

"Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture More Meaning", Codd presented a "solution" for

atomic data structures and proposed “surrogates” as a solution. Surrogates are nonsense.

The authors of "anchor modeling" now do not write the real title of their paper. They presented their paper

on "Wikipedia" with the following title: "Anchor Modeling".

In this way, they hid the real title of their award-winning paper at the most important world conference.

This original title by the authors of "anchor modeling" I presented at the begging of this post.

This original title by authors of „anchor modeling“ is „a heavy“ nonsense of the basics in database theory.

With this post, I wanted to present how the authors of "anchor modeling" use the most famous names and

their erroneous results to "present" their plagiarism of my results.

I have shown that the authors of “anchor modeling” try to cover up their big mistakes. I have also shown

that the most well-known directions in database theory have not solved the problem of "atomic data

structures" at all. I think my solution is the only one that has solved the problem of "atomic data structures".

My solution was plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling".

I presented my solution on this user group. There has been a great deal of discussion on this user group

since 2005 when I presented some of my important solutions.

Vladimir Odrljin

Aug 25, 2021, 12:25:15 PM8/25/21

to

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:

This means that in the existing database theory, decomposition into atomic data structures is not solved – at all.

This further means that the main structure in „anchor modeling“ has no theoretical basis.

The authors of „anchor modeling“ called this main structure „Historized Attribute“ Hatt(C, D,

T), where C is surrogate key, D is one attribute (that is one data) and T is time. What

surprised me was that this „theory“ passed at an international conference in Brasil, December

2009. This „Historized Attribute“ is the most important data structure and I will now explain

what is wrong here:

1.

I wrote in my previous post, (on August 13, 2021), that „Sixth Normal Form“ does not solve

the decomposition of data structures into atomic data structures – at all.

2.

I wrote in my previous post, (on August 13, 2021), that the following text „using the Sixth

Normal Form“ in the title of their paper is big nonsense of the authors of „anchor modeling“.

Why the sentence „using Sixth Normal Form“ is nonsense?

By definition, „Sixth Normal Form“ is just a name for atomic structures. But 6NF does not give

any procedure that brings relvar into atomic structures of data. In fact, the authors of 6NF

gave the name of the procedure but the authors did not say anything about the procedure and

did not say how this procedure works. This means no one can get data in 6NF.

At 28th international Conference on Conceptual modeling, Brasil 2oo9 authors of „anchor

modeling“ won first prize.

On web site for 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling – Gramado, Brazil:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ER 2009 Best Paper Award: The paper „Anchor Modeling – An Agile Modeling Technique

using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data“.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.

„anchor key“ is a surrogate key. The surrogate key does not belong to scientific solutions.

4.

My solution for atomic structures of data given in my papers is the only solution that can do

the decomposition of data structures into atomic data structures.

This thread of mine is about the plagiarism of authors who have published my solution in their papers.

However, the group of authors who published this plagiarism also made major

mistakes and deeply misunderstood some fundamental matters in their papers about „anchor modeling“.

These are the big mistakes in multiple theories, so I was forced to write about them.

Vladimir Odrljin

Oct 2, 2021, 7:18:36 PM10/2/21

to

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:

1. „data that change over time“

2. „Atomic Structures of Data“

1. Let us first consider the following case: „data that change over time“

The authors of „anchor modeling“, at the begining of their paper, at „abstract section“, they wrote the following:

„Maintaining and evolving data warehouses is a complex, error prone, and time consuming activity. The main reason for this state of affairs is that the environment of data warehouse is in constant change, while the warehouse itself needs to provide a stable and consistent interface to information spanning extended periods of time. In this paper, we propose a modeling technique for data warehousing, called anchor modeling, that offers non-destructive exstensibility mechanisms, thereby enabling robust and flexible managment of changes in source systems.“

The aforementioned text is exactly what I solved many years before the appearance of „anchor modeling“ and I did it incomparably better.

I did a huge database project on the UNISYS mainframe. I have done and completed this DB project in four years. After one year of testing, the project was accepted in the written form by the head of my company in 1992. During this work I tested some of my new database theory solutions.

I presented my database theory to this user group, five years before „anchor modeling“ was introduced. During these 5 years there was a huge discusion in which I gave answers to the questions asked. Anyone can see this great discussion even now, on this user group and then you will be convinced that „anchor modeling“ is complete plagiarism of my papers. In early 2010, „anchor modeling“ was published in „Springer“ under the original title „Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique Using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data“.

Unlike „anchor modeling“, my solution applies to any database, not just a „data warehouse“.

So for example, my solution is used on multimedia databases. And also on XML and HTML languages – note that these languages enable „data on the web“.

My database theory, which is presented in this thread is incomparably better than the existing „data warehouse“.

As for assertions of authors of „anchor modeling“ that they „enabling robust and flexible management of changes“ I have presented by examples at this user group - this is not true at all.

I showed on this user group (and also I have shown these examples on another well known user group) that it is possible to successfully commit crime in a database, just by using „anchor modeling“.

Note that the paper „anchor modeling“ won the first prize at the most important international conference for databases.

Let me explain how I did „data that change over time“.

(i)

First I use my theory of identification. My theory of identification is very important and in my opinion it is much better then existing theory that uses keys.

In my opinion, Logic is at the level of spoken language, while identification is not at the level of spoken language. Identification is foundation of logic.

I will now return to my theory of identification. Let „I“ be the abbreviation of the word “identification“. Then I have the following identifications:

1. I(events) - identification of events.

Like I said there are only two events in my database. One event is the entry of new data. The second event is the termination of the existing data in database. These two events are all

2. I(attributes) - identification of attributes

3. I(entities) - identification of entities:

For this type of identification I use the identifier of the entity.

4. I(relationships ) - identification of relationships

For this type of identification I use the identifier of the relationship.

5. I(states) - identification of states of entities (relationships).

For this type of identification I use the identifier of the state.

In the above procedure, the first step is „identification“. After „identification“ we can find the truth value of the sentence.

2. Let us consider the following case: „Atomic Structures of data “

In my solution, atomic structures of data are very important. Atomic structures of data

determine how „Atomic Structures of Data“ are made and how data sructures are constructed.

The atomic structures of data is the most important concept in database theory.

Note that only my database theory allows the construction of „atomic structures of data“.

My data model is the only one that atomic structures of data has „states“.

Complete decomposition of data allows the construction of databases only by using „atomic structures“.

There is another important procedure in my solution for database construction. I introduced an „identifier of entity“ and for „identifier of entity“ I linked all „identifiers of states of that entity“. In this way, I solved the well-known problem „ship of Theseus“ from the ancient Greek philosophy. This is the next question: how do we understand that one entity that has changed, in fact, it is the same entity. For example, how we consider one man to be the same entity even though he changes all the time, from his birth to his death. I solved this only with the help of good data organization.

With this organization of data (and only with the organization of data) I solved this problem from ancient Greek philosophy and I solved this problem for databases. As for databases, I was able to decompose the entities into atomic structures of data.

The authors of „anchor modeling“ from Stocholm University, plagiarized this my data organization and solution, 20 years later and called it „anchor modeling“ .

I presented this my solution on this user group on Septembar 23, 2005. The title of this post of mine on this user group is „Dtabase Design, Keys and some other things“. Anyone on the globe can see this post of mine from 2005.

I have presented the two most important groups of data, in my database theory. In my opinion, they are „data that change over time“ and the second group that I call „atomic structures of data“. The „atomic structures of data“ determine how any data is constructed in our mental activities.

My point in this post is that I precisly constructed and founded „the theory about changes of data“ and „the theory of atomic structures of data“.

I built these two theories using precise procedures and constructions rather then formal theory. This is my attempt to build mathematical objects using procedures, constructions and data organization rather than a formal theory.

For example, I linked an identifier of an entity and the corresponding identifiers of states of this entity. From these constructions I got a complete history of various events of entities and their states.

If I have any data change, then I determine it as a state. I do these changes on the level of data. To this state, I attach the identifier-of-state-of-entity.

After that I form the following pairs:

--------------------------------------------------------------

(identifier- of- entity1, identifier-of-state1-of-entity1)

(identifier- of- entity1, identifier-of-state2-of-entity1)

(identifier- of- entity1, identifier-of-state3-of-entity1)

...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Thre are various combinations with „identifier of entity“ and „identifier of state of entity“

The above pairs determine all the states of an entity and much more. Many years later, the above construction was plagiarized by the authors of „anchor modeling“. They called this construction „anchor modeling“ – as all changes are tied to „anchor“.

In their paper, at the very beginning, in Def 5, the authors of „anchor modeling“ defined „Historized attribute“:

----------------------------------------

Def 5 (Historized Attribute). A historized attribute Hatt(C, D, T), for an anchor A(C) is a table with three columns. The domain of C is ID, of D a non-null data type, and of T a

non-null time type. Hatt .C is a non-null foreign key with respect to A.C . (Hatt.C , Hatt.T) is a primary key for Satt .

---------------------------------------------

In the definition denoted by Def 5, C is the surrogate key, D is the data and T is the time.

Def 5 is the most important part in anchor modeling and it is a complete plagiarisam of my papers, as I explained in this thread.

However in „anchor modeling“ there is also a lot of inaccuracy and nonsense, as I explaned in previous posts. For example, in this Def 5, authors use term „key“, I use term „identifier“. There is huge differences between the term „key“ and term “identifier“. Let me mention that „key“ is related to „semantic“ and „identifier“ is related to my theory of identitfication.

Since Def 5 cannot apply 6NF, because 6NF is a name, then the following question arises: how and on what basis did the authors of „anchor modeling“ get the „atomic structures“ in Def 5. The question of atomic structures is the most important question.

We can see that truth can be determined by using my theory of identification. That means that logic is based on the identification. For example, the truth value of the next sentence:

„John Smith has blue eyes“ we can determine on the following procedure: We must identify the entity John Smith and we must identify the color of his eyes. These two identifications,

for the name and for the color of eyes, we must do in the real world. Then we must check it in our database. In fact, the theory of identification enables that a machine can determine truth values.We can conclude that the process of identification is the base of logic.
Vladimir Odrljin

Oct 20, 2021, 10:42:01 AM10/20/21

to

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:

I am writing about second „scientific paper“ from the authors of „anchor modeling“. This paper has the following name:

„Anchor Modeling Agile Information Modeling in Evolving Data Environments“ and this peper was submited to DKE. Peter Chen was the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal DKE. Peter Chen accepted the mentioned second paper from the authors of „anchor modeling“ and published it, as soon as possible. As far as I know, this second paper about „anchor modeling“ was published in December 2010, in DKE.

The authors of „anchor modeling“ write the following in this second paper:

In definition 16, The authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarised „Identifiers“.

In section 4.5, the authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized „States“.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

„States“ and „Identifiers“ I introduced many years before the appearance of „anchor modeling“ and each of these two theories significantly change database theory. „states“ and „identifiers“ done by the authors of „anchor modeling“ are plagiarism.

Because „states“ and „identifiers“ are large areas, completly new in software, this shows that the existing work with the data is wrong.

Note that first awarded paper from anchor modeling is without „identifiers and states“. The authors of „anchor modeling“ never mentioned “identifiers“ and „states“.

Authors of „anchor modeling“ also took the main ideas from my database theory and presented it as their ideas. They called it „anchor modeling“.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not plagiarism. It is a series of plagiarisms of the most important scientific unsolved problems. „The Peter Chen award“ for the best paper was given to the paper „anchor modeling“. When I started writing about „anchor modeling“, then Peter Chen made it posible to quickly publish another paper by the authors of „anchor modeling“ ( which is based on my results also).

I learned about the first paper on „anchor modeling“ in mid-2010. I send a long letter to Peter Chen about plagiarism called „anchor modeling“. I got one number and nothing more, from Peter Chen.

The group of these scientists from Stocholm university were allowed to do another major plagiarism by using their second scientific paper. That paper is also a plagiarism of my papers and a plagiarism of my explanations on this user group.

In this second paper, authors of „anchor modeling“ take comletely my two new theories („identifiers“ and „states“).

----

These fundamental changes in „anchor modeling“ were done very quickly, so that they can fix their first paper that won the first prize. I came across „anchor modeling“ paper quite by accident sometime in mid 2010. The second paper of „anchor modeling“ was published in December 2010.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We may notice that this new (second) paper by authors of „anchor modeling“ has one unusual nonsense. This nonsense consists of the following:

Identifiers significantly change the logic, because they introduce the theory of identification. Note that there are no „keys“ in my databases, identifiers are being introduced.

„States“ are also a new area. States make it possible to formalize „changes“ in the real world and in memory.

So identifiers and states are very important for database theory, logic, and semantics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However the authors of „anchor modeling“ did not mention „identifications“ and „states“ in their first and awarded paper.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's more, in their database main structure, which is defined in „Def 5“ from the „award-winning paper“, the authors of „anchor modeling“ define primary key and foreign key. They did not mentioned using of identifiers and states.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means that the first paper of „anchor modeling“ is wrong because it does not use „identification“ and does not use „states“.

What is wrong and unusual in the first paper of „anchor modeling“? Wrong is that they won the Peter Chen award? The first paper of „anchor modeling“ was declared as the best paper at 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.

Note that in the first paper from „anchor modeling“ there are no identifiers and no states. This means that the first paper from „anchor modeling“ is wrong in its foundations.

Vladimir Odrljin

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages