some information about anchor modeling

(i) that the paper is inaccurate
(ii) that there are parts of the paper “Anchor Modeling” (AM) that are
of significance, but that these parts are actually only specific cases of the ideas from my paper published in 2005 on my website http://www.dbdesign10.com and on this user group. My paper was published four years before the AM paper and was intensely discussed within this user group.
(iii) that the paper is about the most important things in database
theory

At the end of mentioned thread I wrote the following: “Given the significance of the results of my paper, published four
(five) years before "Anchor Modeling" on this user group, I have
decided to submit complaints to Springer and Data & Knowledge Engineering publishers - the publishers of the first and second versions of "Anchor Modeling". When I find out the results of these complaints I will post them on this user group.”

On May 20th, 2012 I sent the following email to the person responsible for my case, at Springer Publishing Company:

“Dear Ms Anna Kramer,

I am writing to inquire about the status of a complaint of plagiarism I filed over a year ago against the paper with the title “An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data” by: Olle Regardt, Lars Rönnbäck, Maria Bergholtz, Paul Johannesson, Petia Wohed. This paper was published by Springer.

I would appreciate it if you could notify me of the status of this complaint, as it has been over a year since it has been filed and I have not yet received a response.

Sincerely,
Vladimir Odrljin ”

The next day I received the following answer:

“Dear Vladimir Odrljin,

Having contacted all parties involved, we decided against retracting this paper. The claims of plagiarism were not strong enough to warrant taking this step.

Best regards,

Anna Kramer “

--

With regards to this response, I would like to express my opinion. In
spite of the conclusions of the publishing house Springer, I hold that
the paper Anchor Modeling is a plagiarism of my paper published on the
webpage http://www.dbdesign10.com



(i)

“According to U.S. law, the expression of original ideas is considered
intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like
original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under
copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as
a book or a computer file)”


(This quotation of the U.S. law can be found on web page http://plagiarism.org


.
There are more applicable clauses on this webpage than I have cited
here).



(ii)

The following basic ideas from my paper are used by the authors of
Anchor Modeling as their own:

a) My database solution introduces a new idea that enables the
modeling and maintaining
    of knowledge about the states of objects (and relationships) and
changing of the
    knowledge about entities (and relationships). This enables
solutions of databases of a
    general character . The existing database theory, in contrast,
deals with simple and
    static databases.

b) My database solution introduces and enables the construction and
maintenance of a
    “history of changes”. My work gives the first complete solution of
the “history”
    problem.

c) My database solution introduces and determines the construction of
binary structures
    which result from the decomposition of database structures. I want
to note that E. Codd
    unsuccessfully attempted to achieve binary decomposition in his
paper RM/T. Perhaps
    we could say that entire database movement dealing with normal
forms converges
    towards binary structures. There have also been numerous
unsuccessful patents related
    to binary decomposition of database structures.

d) My solution introduces only one operation with data, and that is
the addition of new
    data to the database. There is no deleting or updating of data in
the database. This
    solution, therefore, controls redundancy and has no add, delete or
update anomalies.
    My design calls for everything that is done in a database to be
saved, forever.

e) Note that there are some existing theories about changes, but that
all of them use
    undefined terms like “the world”, “the situation of the world”,
“the state of the world”,
    “states of affairs”, etc. In contrast to this, my solution models
only changes of entities
    and relationships, which are terms that are defined. Secondly, in
my papers, the
    following terms are introduced for the first time: identifiers of
states of entities, states
    of relationships, identifiers of states of relationships, history
of changes of states of
    entities and history of changes of states of relationships

f) An important part of solving “temporal”, “historical” and other
complex databases
    consists of the following three sub-steps:
1. Constructing an identifier of an entity or relationship
2. Connecting all the changes of states of one entity (or
relationship) to the identifier of
    this entity (or relationship). So, the identifier of the entity
always remains unchanged.
    Excluding the identifier, all other attributes of the entity can
change states.
3. Constructing times that correspond to the “creation event” and
“closing event”.

I named these three sub-steps “procedure (a)” in my thread, “The
Original Version”. In this thread I wrote in more detail about the
importance of procedure (a) and its completely new approach in
database theory.

Regarding the above case (f) we can note that “Anchor Modeling” uses a
surrogate key as the identifier of an entity. A surrogate key is a
special sub-case of my solution. In general, it is a very bad database
solution. It can only be a solution to a limited number of cases,
which are only sub-cases of my solution.

Regarding the above case (f) we can note that “Anchor Modeling” uses
time in the way which is a sub-case of my solution.
Let me give an example. My solution can support a situation in which 3
people enter in the database 3 different colors of a single car at the
same time. They do this because they have different opinions about the
real car’s attribute, i.e. the car’s color.
My solution can support and store these three sets of information


(opinions). This case “Anchor modeling” can not support at all. This


kind of an event is impossible in (AM).

In fact, with regard to time, my solution is much more general than
the solution of the "Anchor Modeling". My solution is event-oriented,
and I use only two kinds of events. These two events determine time in
a general sense. They can support a case in which time is continuous,
and they can also support a case in which time is discrete. “Anchor
Modeling” supports only one case.

g) Data structures of the (historized attribute, historized ties…)
“Anchor Modeling” are
    sub cases of binary structures from my paper.



(iii)

I explained my reasons for filing the complaint to Springer in 27
arguments. Each argument is brief and precisely explained. As one can
see from their above-pasted response, I received a generalized
response from Springer, that is, they did not respond to any of my
arguments specifically. Had Springer shown one of these 27 arguments
to be false, I would have accepted this as a legitimate rejection of
my complaint.

I also think my work solves certain significant issues pertaining to
other scientific fields, including Logic, Semantics and Mathematics


(Model Theory, for instance). I defined certain truth conditions, see


my paper, “Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines”, Sections 3.1.2
and 3.2.1 on http://www.dbdesign11.com
Thus, the issue in question is the plagiarism of a work that is of
importance for a group of scientific fields.

Working on this case, I realized that the participants in user groups
have limited opportunities to protect their ideas. I believe members
of the user group have the right to give and take information when it
is related to the activities of the group.

Vladimir Odrljin