Re: some information about anchor modeling
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 12:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <76ecf027-ec76-44b6-babf-ed29915d810d_at_googlegroups.com>
Dana ponedjeljak, 21. travnja 2014. 20:32:59 UTC+2, korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
Hi Derek,
Since you are not interested in the topic of plagiarism, then I´ll finish this
topic. Before that, I will mention a few things.
As I already wrote earlier, the authors of Anchor Modeling plagiarized all the
important parts of my work. In some unimportant details they have given their
solutions. I have demonstrated that all these their solutions are wrong.
In this post I will show only two examples of plagiarism. These two examples
show that these plagiarized things are of utmost importance for the theory and
practice.
- For a long time I have thinking and working on the following problem: People have always held that a name denotes a certain entity, although this entity has been changed many times. How an entity which has changed to another entity is, in fact, the same entity. How one can explain the relationship between Leibniz's law and the possibility of changing entity. This question exists because persisting entities can change their intrinsic properties.
This problem is known as Theseus´s paradox.
I solved this problem by using identifiers of entities. In my paper from 2005, I gave the corresponding procedures, constructions and semantics for solving this problem. The main part of solving "temporal", "historical" and other complex databases consists of two sub steps:
ProcedureA
1. constructing an identifier of an entity or relationship.
2. connecting all changes of states of one entity (or relationship) to
the identifier of this entity (or relationship).
My solution was totally new. You can see the reaction of the users of this group to the first presentation of my solution. (See my thread "Database design, Keys and some other things", from 2005).
Note that ProcedureA contains other important solutions, such as Simple key, Decomposition into atomic structures, and understanding the reality as changes of entities and relationships.
I explained in this thread, that there are three important cases for identifiers of entities:
a) identifiers that are defined as international standard; b) locally defined identifiers; c) surrogate keys.
These identifiers from case a) and case b) can identify the real world entities, because they belong to the real entities.
These identifiers from c) are surrogate keys, they can not identify the real world entities, but they "can provide identification of the entity". How this works? First, we must determine the attributes that correspond to the surrogate key. Then by using these attributes we can determine the real word entity.
Now we can notice that my definition is good. My definition works for all three kinds of mentioned identifiers. That is the reason why I wrote the following: " ...Besides Ack, every entity has an attribute which is an identifier of the entity or can provide identification of the entity..." See my paper "Some ideas about a new data model", section 1.1, posted on September 2005 on this user group at http://www.dbdesign10.com .
Note also that the locally determined identifier is very useful. This identifier can be applied at each company which do not use international standards. Companies that are good organized, can introduce their own, local standards. For example, companies that works with invoices, bills, public utilities companies etc, they can introduce their own technology with locally defined identifiers on their invoices, papers etc.
The authors of Anchor Modeling use complete ProcedureA and call it Anchor Modeling. The identifier from ProcedureA they named "anchor surrogate key", see their paper "Analysis of normal form for anchor models", see page 2 (this is reference [19] in their paper and all five authors sign the paper).
Now, I would like to mention some more serious matters that make this plagiarism more series. In my opinion, my solution has changed important thinks in Logic. Let me shortly present it. In my solution truth-value of the statement depends on the following:
(A) On what time the statement relates.
(B) When the statement is uttered.
(C) What is available subject´s knowledge about the entity's state?
Obviously, my solution precisely determines truth value in the above situations. Note that here I use term "statement". Some mathematicians use term "proposition". (Note that this is very serious theme that needs much more space)
Also my solution affects the application of Model Theory to databases. For example, several times I have presented problems when the IT department is suing the person who has died a long time ago. I mean, the mentioned person does not exist in the real world.
2. The second example of plagiarism refers to the identifier of a state. In my model, the states are the main part. I presented the states in 2005. In my thread "The original version" I presented many mistakes in Anchor Modeling. After that the authors of Anchor Modeling have published a new paper in December 2010, in which they tried to correct their mistakes, using my results. They introduced the identifier of states of relationships, which I introduced and defined in 2005. The identifiers of states of relationships is the most complex things related to states.
Note that I am only one who has defined states of entities and relationships. For example, note that authors of Anchor Modeling plagiarized the identifier of states, but they did not defined states. Of course this is serious nonsense.
I want to emphasize that states are very serious problem.
I solved states for entities and relationships. The entities and relationships
are the most general categories. I defined states as knowledge, and I defined
knowledge, atomic structures, and relationships between meaning and truth for
atomic structure. I also introduced the identifier of states and some other
things.
The states are done on the real conceptual model.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Sun May 25 2014 - 21:26:38 CEST