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..

Click here to read the complete article