Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Did the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize several new theories that are related to general database theory?

56 views
Skip to first unread message

vldm10

unread,
Apr 28, 2019, 8:27:45 PM4/28/19
to
I will answer on the question in the title of this topic with examples of
specific theories.

1. Theory of identification.
In my paper "Some Ideas about a New Data Model" presented on my website and
on this user group on September 17, 2005, I have introduced the
identification theory and the identification of objects and the
identification of the relationships between objects. I have also introduced
the identification of the entity's attributes.
I do not use "keys" in database theory, I use identifiers. This further
means that I am introducing a new theory that enables the identification of
objects in the real world and also the identification of abstract objects
that are written in some "memory". This my theory that uses the
identification of real and abstract objects is different from the theory
that uses the keys. One of the consequences of this theory is that the
identifier is always simple. This means that the identifier can always be
taken as a kind of "simple key". My „key“ is defined in the section 1 of
the mentioned my paper. I use the term "key" and "identifier" at the same
time. However, the difference between "key" and "identifier" is big. The
identifier belongs to one theory, the key to another theory. I use these two
terms alternately to make readers understand this change of concept more
easily.


From the previous text it is clear that my identification theory allows much
more than "anchor modeling". It enables identification of objects from the
real world. My theory also enables the identification of abstract objects
that are in memory. These two identifications are linked to one. This link
is realized by applying one identifier for both identifications.

"Anchor surrogate" key is applied only to abstract objects(objects-in-
memory). The authors of "anchor modeling" wrote that they apply "anchor
modeling" for "data warehouse“. This means that "anchor modeling" is not on
the database level.

That is why "anchor modeling" is just a special case of my general solution.
And this means that "anchor modeling" is plagiarism.

Vladimir Odrljin


vldm10

unread,
May 2, 2019, 9:30:27 AM5/2/19
to
2. New theory about abstract objects and objects from the real world

In my paper "Some Ideas about a New Data Model" presented on my website and
on this user group on September 17, 2005, I have introduced „New theory
related to abstract and real object“. In this new theory it is accepted
that every object has changes during its existence and that it is the same
object that has only changed its states. For example, one man changes his
physical attributes during his life. However, we consider that the person
with the changes is the same as the original person and for the duration of
its existence we use the same name - No matter how much this person has
changed.
In the current theory and practice for the databases we have the following
rule: if an entity changes its attributes then we change the key of this
entity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, current database theory has not solved the problem of
changing the states of the objects and the corresponding keys for such
objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike the existing theory, my solution has the identification of the entity
and has the identification of each state of this entity. This leads to a
new theory of databases. So, I link all the changes to the identifier of the
entity. The identifier of the entity remains fixed, but the entity has
states. In this way the entity does not change, but has states in which it
existed.
This my solution provides a new theory of objects and relationships between
objects.
This my solution shows how some of the most important mental, logical,
semantic and linguistic procedures can be constructed and how they can
be connected.
We also can notice that objects and relationships between objects are very
important concepts in some other sciences.

These authors from the University of Stockholm plagiarized my ideas and my
work, that I explained here. They published it as their paper, giving it the
name of "anchor modeling".

I presented my solution publicly on this user group on September 2005 and
also on my website.
Paper anchor modeling was presented in December 2009. In this period of four
years, my solution had a lengthy discussion, sometimes it was on a daily
basis. This user group was then the most popular in the world and translated
at more than 10 languages. So my solution was well known.

Since modern databases are based on semantic and logic, then my solution
introduces new improvements to an important part of existing semantic
theory. And that implies changes in database theory that are of fundamental
character. That is why this plagiarism of the authors of "anchor modeling"
is actually a plagiarism of important theories in contemporary science.

In this user group, some users have claimed that my identifier of a state of
an entity is a surrogate key. But that's not true. My solution has an
identifier of an entity and an identifier of a state of the entity. A new
idea for identifiers has been applied here - this is the idea that
identifiers can be linked in a variety of ways. My solution semantically
links these two identifiers.
(i) The identifier of an entity is linked with identifiers of states of
the entity.
(ii) The identifier of an entity (which is in the database) is linked with
the corresponding identifier of the entity in the real world. In this
way the identifier of the entity identify entity which is in the memory
(i.e in the database) with the corresponding entity in the real world.
An identifier of states of an entity is always associated with its entity
identifier. In addition, the identifier of states of an entity has many time
oriented data and very complex links between these data. As far as I know,
no other data model can provide such complex links between the real world
and the abstract world. My data model always determines exactly who (or what
procedure) has entered some data. This system for EVERY data can determine
who entered this data into database. So my "key" is not a surrogate key. My
"key" gives a much stronger connection to the real world than any other data
model.

Vladimir Odrljin

vldm10

unread,
May 14, 2019, 4:35:41 AM5/14/19
to
I have introduced „atomic structures“, presented on my website and on this
user group on September 17, 2005. In this my paper, atomic structures have
been obtained for the first time. What is more important, I have presented
the procedure that enable the construction of atomic structures.

In this paper history of „atomic structures“ have been obtained and
„history“ on the level of „atomic structures“ was solved for the first time.

E. Codd tried to get „atomic data“ by applying the surrogate key. Codd tried
to get the atomic data structures in his work, called RM / T. However, Codd
did not solve the atomic data structure in this paper.

C.J. Date, Hugh Darwen, and Nikos A. Lorentzos have tried to get „atomic
data structures“, using the so-called 6NF.

Neither Codd's RM/T nor Date & Darwen & Lorencos 6NF do not construct
"atomic data" nor decompose data structures on "atomic data".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity/Relationship data model and Relational data model have the following
fundamental mistake:
If at least one attribute of an entity changes its value, then the changed
entity is considered as another entity that is a different object from the
original object (and has a different key).

In my solution, one entity may have different states and all of these states
are related to that entity, i.e states are related to the identifier of the
entity.
This, my solution was taken by the authors of Anchor Modeling and they have
declared that my solution is their solution. This plagiarized solution they
called "anchor modeling". By the way, my solution was published on my
website and on this user group, where it was intensively discussed by the
users of this group, sometimes on daily basis. "Anchoring Modeling" was
published five years after the publication of my work.

The authors of "Anchor modeling" referred to 6NF and they put "6NF" in the
title of their paper. They also claim that their model is based on the
Entity / Relationship Model. However, at the beginning of this post - I
wrote about a major error in the Relational Model and the
Entity/Relationship model and that I therefore introduced „the identifier of
the entity and the identifier of the state of the entity“. Authors of
"anchor modeling" plagiarized this my idea and called it "anchor modeling".

And that's a real chaos in "anchor modeling" - they are based on "anchor
modeling" and they are based on 6NF. However, (6NF, Entity/Relationship
model) and "anchor modeling" exclude each other, as I explained above.

I will remind readers of this text that the definition of "Candidate Key"
written by C.J.Date in his book "An Introduction to Database Systems" is as
follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let R be a relation. Then a candidate key for R is subset of the set of
attributes of R, say K such that:

1. Uniqueness property:
No two distinct tuples of R have the same value for K.

2. Irreducibility property:
No proper subset of K has the uniqueness property.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that this definition is based on „set of attributes“ and that key is a
set of attributes.

Vladimir Odrljin

vldm10

unread,
Oct 7, 2019, 8:11:28 AM10/7/19
to
My data and database solution has the necessary whole. That whole shows that
the solution is complex. My solution involves this whole, which has the
following four levels:

The first level. Thoughts.
Second level. Concepts (sets) and Objects (individuals).
Third level. Predicates and object names.
Fourth level. Propositions.

The fourth level clearly suggests that thoughts are only what is true. My
solution uses a theory created by Gottlob Frege that includes these four
levels. My solution also involves the beginnings of several entirely new
theories. In my paper from 2008 I introduced concepts as part(level) of
database theory.

But let's get back to the aforementioned four levels. Frege does not write
about the Entity / Relationship model. Frege does not write about the
Relational Model. Frege writes about one wholeness to which the levels
mentioned above belong.

Many years later Kurt Gödel in 1944: „By the theory of simple types I mean
the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals,
properties of such relations, etc...“

The examples above show that there is no "Relational Model" or "Entity /
Relationship Model" as something separate from each other. These are the
"levels" of a whole.

In his paper, The Entity-Relationship Model-Toward a Unified View of Data,
Peter Chen tries to define the most important part of his work - Entity. In
my opinion, Chen does not give a good definition of an entity. Chen also had
to quote Gottlob Frege and Kurt Gödel's definitions of "Entity" and
"Relationship", mentioned above. I am aware that before Chen, other
mathematicians also wrote about the Entities.

In Section 2.2 of his paper, Peter Chen defines the entity as follows: „An
entity is a „thing“ which can be distinctly identified.“

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this definition, Peter Chen did not define an entity. The phrase "An
entity is a" thing " doesn't mean to much. We note that the entity is a
major term in the ER data model and it has remained unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the scheme mentioned above in "Second Level" we have concepts and they
make plurality, that is, sets. An set is a plurality that is understood as
one object. The concept is "older" than the predicate. Predicate is just a
linguistic level. The plurality of objects from a concept can be determined
by a machine that does not know any language. These examples indicate that
Peter Chen does not understand the differences mentioned above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gottlob Frege introduces the concept and the extension of the concept. From
Freges definition of the concept and the extension of the concept, can be
obtained extensionality and comprehension for sets. John Burgess from
Princeton University, showed it very nicely. However, we can note that Peter
Chen does not mention the concept in his paper.

Peter Chen writes in section 2.2.1: "There is a predicate associated with
each entity to test whether an entity belongs to it." In the same section,
Peter Chen writes, "Let e denote an entity that exists in our minds.
Entities are classified into different entity sets ... " It's not clear
here what an entity is and what our mind is. Entities cannot be classified
into different sets, as Peter Chen wrote, because the sets do can not
contain entities.

The authors of "Anchor Modeling" in Section 2.1 define their most important
term: "An anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or
events." Note that we do not place physical objects or events in sets. This
nonsense is another fact that shows that "Anchor modeling" is plagiarism
because the authors do not understand the basic concepts in fundamental
theories as it is the set theory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I presented the main part of my solution on this user group in 2005. I
always answered every question. At the time, this user group was translating
into more than 10 languages. At that time, discussions about my solution
were often daily.
In 2009, The International Conference on Conceptual Modeling was held in
Brasil. ER 2009 Best Paper Award: The paper "Anchor Modeling." As far as I
know, the honorary chairman of this conference was Peter Chen.

Following my writing on web site of this group about this plagiarism of my
work, the authors of "Anchor modeling" published another paper in which they
took other important things from my papers, presented it like theirs new
theories and try to fix mentioned mistakes.
For example, these authors plagiarized "Identifiers" and "States."
"Identifiers" and "States" are the beginnings and foundations of two new
theories, as I described in this thread, that substantially change all the
software so far. These new solution are about data, logic, semantic and much
more.
I have presented "Identifiers" and "States" in 2005 on this user group and
on my website. This user group has extensively discussed my solution for the
first 5 years and this discussion can be seen on this site.

I wrote about these plagiarism to Peter Chen, he never responded to my
letter. This is a brutal plagiarism of the most important scientific results
that have an impact on overall software, mathematics, logic, semantics and
philosophy.

This second paper on "Anchor modeling" was published shortly, 4 months after
my writing on plagiarism in my first paper on "Anchor modeling".

This second paper by authors of „Anchor Modeling“ is published in DKE,
Editor-in-Chief: Peter Chen.

Vladimir Odrljin

vldm10

unread,
Oct 10, 2019, 7:27:18 PM10/10/19
to
My solution is the first one that has atomic structures. This solution gives
the atomic decomposition of entities (objects). A specific procedure for
decomposing entities to atomic structures is also given.
Note that atomic structures have tried to get a lot of people, but all these
solutions have been unsuccessful.

Date & Darwen are trying to come up with this solution. They defined the so-
called „Sixth Normal Form“. However, what is only important, they have not
done, and that is how to solve the following problem: how to put any
relation in „Sixth Normal Form“. How to get atomic relations.

Codd also try to get the atomic data structures. But Codd's solution failed
because it uses a surrogate key. The surrogate key is bad solution. The
surrogate key is also inconsistent with relational database theory and with
Entity-Relationship model. Codd, Date and Darwen also made some others mistakes.

In my post on October 7, 2019 on this user group I wrote the following text:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My data and database solution has the necessary whole. That whole shows that
the solution is complex. My solution involves this whole, which has the
following four levels:

The first level. Thoughts.
Second level. Concepts (sets) and Objects (individuals).
Third level. Predicates and object's names.
Fourth level. Propositions.

The fourth level clearly suggests that thoughts are only what is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that I got:
Atomic Thoughts,
Atomic Concepts and objects,
Atomic Predicates
Atomic Propositions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vladimir Odrljin

vldm10

unread,
Oct 26, 2019, 2:13:14 AM10/26/19
to
Dana ponedjeljak, 29. travnja 2019. u 02:27:45 UTC+2, korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
> I will answer on the question in the title of this topic with examples of
> specific theories.

C. J. Date wrote the following text in his book:
Definition:
Relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it satisfies no nontrivial JDs at all.

Equivalently a "regular" relvar is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key,plus at most one additional attribute.

In fact, the above definition is not even a definition. C.J. Date informs readers of his book that he calls "6NF" relations that have only a key and one attribute.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, what is only important about one-attribute-key data relations is how to get those data relations and C. J. Date says nothing about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is written in the „definition of 6NF“ - that is what everybody knows that atomic data structures consist of a key and one attribute. Because of this explanation about 6NF, in my opinion, the authors of 6NF are bluffing that they have solved atomic data structures.

I have shown with examples on this user-group that "Anchor Modeling" has major and system errors. These mistakes made by the authors of "Anchor Modeling" were due to a lack of understanding of the important things in my work, that they plagiarized.

What is unusual and completely strange is that the authors of "Anchor modeling" put in the title of their paper the following text: "using the Sixth Normal Form".
Title of this paper that won the first prize at the World Congress is as follows:
„Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data.“

Let's mention that 6NF belongs to the "Relational Model". However, "Anchor Modeling" is not a Relational Model. Once again, let us mention that 6NF is just a name introduced by C. J. Date.

Vladimir Odrljin

vldm10

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 1:44:46 AM10/28/19
to
Since relations are built of tuples, Date & Darwen define term tuple precisely in the following way:
"Tuple value" is a set of n ordered triples of the form <Ai, Ti, vi>, where Ai is an atribute name, Ti is type name, and vi is value of type Ti.

However their „the running example“ has relvar S, relvar P and relvar SP. However, in my opinion, there are huge „mess“ here. For example, S# is not an attribute. In my database theory S# is identifier of the entity.
In my database theory attributes belong to semantic theory. Identifiers belong to the identification theory. Note that I defined the identification theory in my papers.

Vladimir Odrljin
0 new messages