• My proof that "anchor modeling" is plagiarism of my papers.

    From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 24 09:29:48 2021
    Dana subota, 27. ožujka 2021. u 04:43:39 UTC+1 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
    Dana ponedjeljak, 23. prosinca 2019. u 14:50:24 UTC+1 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
    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
    In my approach to database theory, I have built the beginnings of the following 8 new theories listed below that are related to data and databases. These 8 theories are interrelated and
    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

    In my post, (from March 27, 2021), at beginning of this post I made a mistake. Instead of www.dbdesign.com should be replaced with www.dbdesign10.com.
    Vladimir Odrljin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 13 02:12:32 2021
    On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 13 02:30:26 2021
    Dana ponedjeljak, 23. prosinca 2019. u 14:50:24 UTC+1 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
    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

    The authors of “anchor modeling“ use „identity“ as the main term. However, this is a term that is not defined. Since „identity“ is not a defined term at all, the use of this term as a main term in procedures with data has no sense.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 4 03:34:45 2021
    On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
    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

    I will first define some basic terms.
    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 about atomic data structures.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 13 03:21:13 2021
    Dana srijeda, 4. kolovoza 2021. u 12:34:46 UTC+2 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
    On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
    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
    I will first define some basic terms.
    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 about atomic data structures.
    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


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 25 09:25:13 2021
    On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
    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

    In my post from August 13, 2021, I wrote that „Sixth Normal Form“ is just a name and nothing more.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 2 16:18:35 2021
    On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
    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
    In this post I will write about data. For this post I will only write about two types of data that play an important role in my theory. These are the following two important types of data no one has written about:
    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
    events in my theory of database, regarding data.

    2. I(attributes) - identification of attributes
    Attributes are atomic elements in my theory of databases. To do identification of atomic elements user can associate times information, and anything that 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.

    (ii) I also introduced some other theories, such as Theory of States and Theory of Atomic Data Structures.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From vldm10@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 20 07:41:59 2021
    On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
    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
    In this post, I will write about plagiarism by the authors of „anchor modeling“ that is related to two important sets: a set of identifiers and a set of states. In the previous post, I wrote about the great importance of identifiers and of states.
    I will now explain the anatomy of these two plagiarisms.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)