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