From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

On September 17, 2005 I posted on my web site www.dbdesign10.com
the following text: "Some ideas about a new data model" .
I will only present section 1.1 of this text: ***************************************************************************
1.1 Construction of Conceptual Model
We determine the Conceptual Model so that every entity and every relationship has only one attribute, all of whose values are distinct. So this attribute doesnrCOt have two of the same values. We will call this attribute the Identifier of the state of an entity or relationship. We will denote this attribute by the symbol Ack. All other attributes can have values which are the same for some different members of an entity set or a relationship set. Besides Ack, every entity has an attribute which is the Identifier of the entity or can provide identification of the entity. This Identifier has one value for all the states of one entity or relationship.
************************************************************************** According to this small text I posted on my website, it is immediately apparent that I am "tying" all changes of one entity to the identifier of the entity. This is exactly what the authors of "anchors modeling" wrote many years later and called it "anchor modeling".
On September 23, 2005, I posted the following text in the following thread rCRDatabase design, Keys and some other thingsrCL on this user group. These examples in this thread are from my web site www.dbdesign10.com
*************************************************************************
Here is a simple example about two entities and one relationship - Car,
Person and Owner. It tries to describe more realistically Real World situations. A car had its color changed twice. In the Real World
attributes are often changed. In another entity, the person Mary
changed her last name because she got married. In the relationship
Owner it can happen that one person buys the same car twice during a
period of time. It can also happen that two entities can be in the same relationship many times. So,I believe that this new approach is more appropriate.
Given the table Car :
CarKey CarID Make Color ... ______________________________________________________
...
23 vin1 Buick silver ...
24 vin1 Buick blue ...
25 vin1 Buick red ...
26 vin2 Honda silver ...
27 vin3 Ford black ...
...
In the Car table VIN = Vehicle Identification Number
Now, let Person be the following table:
PersonKey PersonID PersonName ... _______________________________________________________
...
208 ssn1 Mary Jones ...
209 ssn1 Mary Adams ...
210 ssn2 John Stewart ...
...
In the Person table SSN = Social Security Number
Then the relationship Owner, which is the act of owning a car, can have
the following values:
OwnerKey Person Key CarKey Year ... ___________________________________________
...
54 210 26 2003 ...
55 210 24 2004 ...
56 210 26 2005 ...
...
More details about this example can be found on my website
www.dbdesign10.com
where I gave a new definition of Key and tried to develop a new Data
Model. *********************************************************************************************************
In the text from my web site and in the text posted on this user group, specific examples are given of how to create a completely new database theory. A group of Swedish scientists completely plagiarized this idea and my work and presented it as their work. This plagiarism was done 5 years after the publication of my work and after many years of discussion about my solution on this user group.
These two examples (my website and my discussion on this user group) clearly show that "anchor modeling" is plagiarism. My database model presentation can be viewed by anyone in the world, anywhere in the world at any time. I want to say that I was completely open in the presentation of my data model.
This is clearly indicated by the dates when my paper was published and the dates of these discussions on this user group.
Vladimir Odrljin
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

In their second paper, the authors made mistakes in defining important database expressions.
I will present only a few initial definitions that are the basis of "anchor modeling":
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.
2.1. Anchors
An anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events. Definition 4 (Anchor). An anchor A is a string. An extension of an anchor is a subset of ID .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will consider "Identities" first. This term was created by software vendors. In fact, software vendors have produced an "identity column." "Anchor key" is a surrogate key. Surrogate key is a bad solution for databases. From the point of view of database theory, the surrogate key makes no sense. Let us mention that the notion of identity gives rise to many philosophical, mathematical and logical problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I presented in this thread we use Leibniz Law (Identity indiscernibles) to determine entities. There are no "surrogates" in Leibniz Law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identity is a term that is not defined at all. In fact, "entity" is one of the fundamental concepts in the fundamental sciences. The identity is a fundamental part of every entity. Based on the above, the term rCRidentity of an entityrCY is not defined at all. Obviously the authors of "anchor modeling" want to present themselves as those who work hard to determine the identity of objects.
Another important term is "anchor". It is a term that is not defined at all. The authors of "anchor modeling" describe "anchor" as follows: "An anchor represents a set of entity, such as a set of actors or events." However, in set theory there is no such thing as a "set of entities" or a "set of actors" or a "set of events"!
In Definition 4, the authors wrote the following: "An extension of an anchor is a subset of ID". Definition 1 states that ID set is used as identities. It follows from the previous two sentences that the elements of an extension of an anchor are used as identities. As I wrote the word "identity of entity" is not defined.
But what matters here is that the anchor key and identities are surrogate keys. In their second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" claim that their model is more general than traditional conceptual modeling techniques and write the following: rCREven though the origin of Anchor Modeling were requirements found in data warehouse environments, the techniques is a generic modeling approach also suitable for other types of systems. An Anchor model is realized as a relational database schema will have a high degree of normalization, provide reuse of data, offer the ability to store historical data, as well, as have the benefits which Anchor Modeling brings into a data warehouse. The relationship between anchor modeling and traditional conceptual modeling techniques for relational databases, such as ER, EER, UML, and ORM is described in Section 10.rCL
The authors of mentioned paper write rCLhow anchors models can be realized as relational databases with examples of schema evolution.rCY It seems that Relational model is a special case of rCRanchor modelingrCL.
In the following definition, they present their main data structure:
Definition 7 (Historized Attribute) A Historized Attribute BH is a string. A historized attribute BH has an anchor A for domain, a data type D for rang, and a time type T as time range. An extension of a historized attribute BH is a relation over ID x D x T .
This is the most important data structure in their Relational Model. However, the relational model does not have "anchor" nor surrogates. It seems to me that the authors of rCLanchor modelingrCY (and also Peter Chen) do not understand that the Relational Model is much more than a set of relationships.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Relational Model uses a language when it comes to Propositional Logic, Predicate Logic, and Semantics. Authors of rCRanchor modelingrCL and Peter Chen did not notice that surrogates do not belong to any language. These are a basic things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Odrljin
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

I would also like to highlight the following information. As far as I know bitemporal data has been patented to one person from Microsoft. However, I think a colleague of mine who worked with me at the same company, he solved bitemporal data first but did not patent it.
I solved this problem for ntemporal data. So note that my database solution can solve the general case, which is ntemporal data. In fact my database solution can solve much more then rCRtemporal datarCL.

I want to point out that Microsoft only gave a description of what the bi-temporal data is. However Microsoft has not given how bi-temporal data should be solved. Only my solution solves bi-temporal data. My solution is the only one that also solves n-temporal data. No one else can solve bi-temporal data, ..., n-temporal data.
Vladimir Odrljin
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

The definition of truth so far have not taken a number of aspects regarding true of propositions. In my data model it is possible to determine truth in the past, present and future. Even more, in my data model there are precise procedures for determining truth in the present, past, future, procedures for history of data and for some other important areas.
Someone can write down a false proposition or give false information about an entity. People who workk with databases know that propositions can be inaccurate,errorneus, that can be part of crime, etc.
Databases significantly expand the notion of truth to a large amount of data and to a number of other aspects. All these cases, from point of view of truth are precisely determined in my solution. Today's databases are large, sometimes global with large amount of very important data.
On this occasion , I would like to remind on the following three most famous definitions of truth.
AristotlerCOs definition of truth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that is not, is true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FregerCOs construction of truth -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth--value of a proposition is determined by its form and the semantic properties of its constituents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarski began his work on the definition of truth sometime around 1930. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the period from 1940 to 1960, Tarski and his colleagues accept Model Theory as the best approach to problem of truth. Model Theory began the study of formal languages and their interpretation. But today, Model Theory is the study of the interpretation of any language, formal or natural, with TarskirCOs definition of truth.
Very important concept of Model Theory is the satisfaction relation or the definition of mathematical truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote about these three definitions to show the magnitude, scale and importance of this plagiarism when it comes to the definition of truth.
Vladimir Odrljin
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory


The authors of rCLanchor modelingrCY present their main ideas in section 2.1 in their first award-winning paper.
Section 2.1 begins as follows:
rCRAn Anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events. Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.
Def 2 (Anchor). An anchor A(C) is a table with one column. The domein of C is ID. The primary key for A is C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this small section 2.1, where the authors define the main terms of their database model, there is a lot of nonsense.
For example, there is no set of entities and set of actors or set of events as claimed by the authors of "Anchor modeling". These are the basic things from set theory. We do not place physical objects or events in sets.
In the title of this best and award-winning paper is the following text "..using Sixth Normal Form ...". However no one can use 6NF because it is just a name. The authors of 6NF have not shown what is important here and that is how to bring the relation into 6NF. This is actually about atomic data structures and how to get them, and that is the most important question in database theory. I will now quote the definition of 6NF as defined by the authors of 6NF:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rCRDefinition: Relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it satisfies no nontrivial JDs at all.
Equivalently, a rCRregularrCL relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key, plus at most one additional attribute.rCL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this definition of 6NF it is clear that 6NF is just another name for atomic data structures.
Note that the authors of Anchor modeling in section 2.1 write rCLan anchor represent a set of entities ...rCY and refer to 6NF in the title of this paper. 6NF is from the Relational model. It follows from the above that the rCRanchor modelrCL is at the same time the Entity-Relationship model because the main term rCLanchorrCY is defined as a set of entities and the Relational model because it uses 6NF.
However the biggest nonsense in this section 2.1 of Anchor modeling is Def 1. In Def 1 from section 2.1 the authors define rCLIdentitiesrCY. However, "Identities" is known to be an undefined term. Some of the authors of Object Oriented Programming have introduced the term "Identity" for entities. They "believe" or have a "feeling" that each object has an "identity." An identity in object oriented programming, describes the property of objects that distinguishes them from other objects.
It is not possible to use undefined expressions in database theory. This is the main reason that there are no successful object oriented databases in practice.
In the above-mentioned section 2.1 in "Def 2", the authors of "anchor modeling" define their main term "anchor" which is based on undefined "identities". That is also nonsense.
However, the authors of "anchor modeling" introduce a new term in their second paper. They introduce an "Identifier" for relationships for entities. The identifier of relationship is the most complex. ItrCOs plagiarism of my papers.
I developed the theory of identification much earlier and published it in 2005 on this user group on September 23, 2005 in the thread "Database design, Keys and some other things" and presented on my website: www.dbdesign10.com At the very beginning of this my website in section 1, I introduced identifiers instead of keys. I also introduced the notion of identification. The notion of identification in my theory is the most elementary level of truth. So I don't really have the keys. Identifiers have only one field.
I have identification of attributes, identification of entities, identification of relationships and identification of states of entities and relationships.
I accidentally discovered "anchor modeling" on the Internet. On May 26, 2010, I started my thread "The original version" about the great plagiarism in "anchor modeling" - on this user group.
As far as I know, the authors of "anchor modeling" submitted their second paper on October 5, 2010, and it was published in December 2010, in the journal DKE, by the editor-in-chief Peter Chen. I want to point out that only 4 months have passed from my post on plagiarism in rCLanchor modelingrCY to the publication of another rCLanchorrCY paper in DKE. In this second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" also made large plagiarisms of my solutions. I have already written about it in this thread, so it is not necessary to write about it again.
Vladimir Odrljin
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.databases.theory

Dana ponedjeljak, 28. rujna 2020. u 11:06:20 UTC+2 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:

The authors of rCLanchor modelingrCY present their main ideas in section 2.1 in their first award-winning paper.
Section 2.1 begins as follows:
rCRAn Anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events. Def 1 (Identities). Let ID be an infinite set of symbols, which are used as identities.
Def 2 (Anchor). An anchor A(C) is a table with one column. The domein of C is ID. The primary key for A is C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this small section 2.1, where the authors define the main terms of their database model, there is a lot of nonsense.
For example, there is no set of entities and set of actors or set of events as claimed by the authors of "Anchor modeling". These are the basic things from set theory. We do not place physical objects or events in sets.
In the title of this best and award-winning paper is the following text "..using Sixth Normal Form ...". However no one can use 6NF because it is just a name. The authors of 6NF have not shown what is important here and that is how to bring the relation into 6NF. This is actually about atomic data structures and how to get them, and that is the most important question in database theory. I will now quote the definition of 6NF as defined by the authors of 6NF:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rCRDefinition: Relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it satisfies no nontrivial JDs at all.

Equivalently, a rCRregularrCL relvar R is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key, plus at most one additional attribute.rCL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From this definition of 6NF it is clear that 6NF is just another name for atomic data structures.

Note that the authors of Anchor modeling in section 2.1 write rCLan anchor represent a set of entities ...rCY and refer to 6NF in the title of this paper. 6NF is from the Relational model. It follows from the above that the rCRanchor modelrCL is at the same time the Entity-Relationship model because the main term rCLanchorrCY is defined as a set of entities and the Relational model because it uses 6NF.
However the biggest nonsense in this section 2.1 of Anchor modeling is Def 1. In Def 1 from section 2.1 the authors define rCLIdentitiesrCY. However, "Identities" is known to be an undefined term. Some of the authors of Object Oriented Programming have introduced the term "Identity" for entities. They "believe" or have a "feeling" that each object has an "identity." An identity in object oriented programming, describes the property of objects that distinguishes them from other objects.
It is not possible to use undefined expressions in database theory. This is the main reason that there are no successful object oriented databases in practice.
In the above-mentioned section 2.1 in "Def 2", the authors of "anchor modeling" define their main term "anchor" which is based on undefined "identities". That is also nonsense.

However, the authors of "anchor modeling" introduce a new term in their second paper. They introduce an "Identifier" for relationships for entities. The identifier of relationship is the most complex. ItrCOs plagiarism of my papers.
I developed the theory of identification much earlier and published it in 2005 on this user group on September 23, 2005 in the thread "Database design, Keys and some other things" and presented on my website: www.dbdesign10.com At the very beginning of this my website in section 1, I introduced identifiers instead of keys. I also introduced the notion of identification. The notion of identification in my theory is the most elementary level of truth. So I don't really have the keys. Identifiers have only one field.
I have identification of attributes, identification of entities, identification of relationships and identification of states of entities and relationships.

I accidentally discovered "anchor modeling" on the Internet. On May 26, 2010, I started my thread "The original version" about the great plagiarism in "anchor modeling" - on this user group.
As far as I know, the authors of "anchor modeling" submitted their second paper on October 5, 2010, and it was published in December 2010, in the journal DKE, by the editor-in-chief Peter Chen. I want to point out that only 4 months have passed from my post on plagiarism in rCLanchor modelingrCY to the publication of another rCLanchorrCY paper in DKE. In this second paper, the authors of "anchor modeling" also made large plagiarisms of my solutions. I have already written about it in this thread, so it is not necessary to write about it again.

Vladimir Odrljin

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2