Re: some information about anchor modeling
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:15:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <47672dca-caf1-4f94-a216-3a188bec9a6a_at_googlegroups.com>
Hi Derek,
With this post, I'd finished my writing in this thread. Given that these are the
most important topics for database theory, be free you or anyone else, to
present your opinions, criticism, and other things that is associated with this
thread.
Regarding the plagiarism of my work by the author of Anchor Modeling, that's
what I already wrote in this thread and in thread "The original version".
1.
As I understood, your main question is related to “surrogate key”. My answer now
is short because I already explain this controversy. My Simple Form gives
general conditions for decomposition of an entity into the atomic structures. An
atomic structure has the simple key and one attribute. Here, in the atomic
structure, you can apply a surrogate key instead of the simple key.
In my paper “Some ideas about a new data model” from September 17, 2005 at http://www.dbdesign10.com section 1.1, I wrote “besides Ack, every entity has an attribute which is the identifier of the entity or can provide identification of the entity.” Here part “or can provide identification” is related to the surrogate key.
I think in this thread has shown that the surrogate key can be applied only in a
small number of business applications.
In my post from April 1, 2013, in this thread, I showed that Anchor Modeling is
wrong in a number of cases.
Related to surrogate key, here's another information. A few days ago I found a book by Joe Celko in a bookstore in Croatia. The book is titled "Joe Celko's Data, Measurements and Standards in SQL." In the book there is section about Codd's surrogate key. Joe wrote the following:
“This means that a surrogate ought to act like index; created by the user, managed by the system and never seen by a user. That means never used in queries, DRI, or anything else that user does.”
About ten years ago I rudely attacked Joe's post about Codd's surrogate key, at this user group. At that time, for me Codd was the greatest authority for databases; so that my attack on Joe was provoked by suspicion that Joe slowly expanding degradation of Codd's paper, without justifiable reasons. My poor knowledge of English has also contributed that my post was harsh. However, Joe was the first who realized the incorrect nature of RM / T. All my results I got quite independently of the other. Luckily I worked completely independently. If I were studying other people's work, it is certain that I would not do something serious. I worked on specific projects with specific requirements.
Later, when I published my ideas, a couple of times I tried to figure out exactly how it actually works Codd's surrogate key. Eventually I came to similar conclusions as it concluded Joe. I think that today, this controversy about surrogates is fully solved. So, the surrogate key was solved and explained by the members of this user group. It is not done by academia.
2.
In my opinion, the authors of Anchor Modeling are plagiarized major things from
my work. Some minor things are not plagiarized, but are changed and all these
changes are the cause of large errors in the Anchor Modeling.
I do not like this role, to publicly and persistently defend my work, and these
types are not really my style. It also is not pleasant to write such a long
thread in front of all those who know me personally. But this is unfortunately
the only way to defend my work.
If I did not write anything about this plagiarism, my work would be in vain. On
the other hand author of the Anchor Modeling would have an "open door" and
unlimited time to repair the errors of theirs paper, such as they largely done
in the corrected version of the Anchor Modeling.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue Dec 31 2013 - 22:15:11 CET