Re: Did the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize several new theories that are related to general database theory?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 05:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <273a8671-a1f0-4e13-97f8-9c1118665da6_at_googlegroups.com>
My data and database solution has the necessary whole. That whole shows that the solution is complex. My solution involves this whole, which has the following four levels:
The first level. Thoughts.
Second level. Concepts (sets) and Objects (individuals).
Third level. Predicates and object names.
Fourth level. Propositions.
The fourth level clearly suggests that thoughts are only what is true. My solution uses a theory created by Gottlob Frege that includes these four levels. My solution also involves the beginnings of several entirely new theories. In my paper from 2008 I introduced concepts as part(level) of database theory.
But let's get back to the aforementioned four levels. Frege does not write about the Entity / Relationship model. Frege does not write about the Relational Model. Frege writes about one wholeness to which the levels mentioned above belong.
Many years later Kurt Gödel in 1944: „By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc...“
The examples above show that there is no "Relational Model" or "Entity /
Relationship Model" as something separate from each other. These are the
"levels" of a whole.
In his paper, The Entity-Relationship Model-Toward a Unified View of Data,
Peter Chen tries to define the most important part of his work - Entity. In
my opinion, Chen does not give a good definition of an entity. Chen also had
to quote Gottlob Frege and Kurt Gödel's definitions of "Entity" and
"Relationship", mentioned above. I am aware that before Chen, other
mathematicians also wrote about the Entities.
In Section 2.2 of his paper, Peter Chen defines the entity as follows: „An entity is a „thing“ which can be distinctly identified.“
In this definition, Peter Chen did not define an entity. The phrase "An entity is a" thing " doesn't mean to much. We note that the entity is a major term in the ER data model and it has remained unclear.
In the scheme mentioned above in "Second Level" we have concepts and they make plurality, that is, sets. An set is a plurality that is understood as one object. The concept is "older" than the predicate. Predicate is just a linguistic level. The plurality of objects from a concept can be determined by a machine that does not know any language. These examples indicate that Peter Chen does not understand the differences mentioned above.
Gottlob Frege introduces the concept and the extension of the concept. From Freges definition of the concept and the extension of the concept, can be obtained extensionality and comprehension for sets. John Burgess from Princeton University, showed it very nicely. However, we can note that Peter Chen does not mention the concept in his paper.
Peter Chen writes in section 2.2.1: "There is a predicate associated with each entity to test whether an entity belongs to it." In the same section, Peter Chen writes, "Let e denote an entity that exists in our minds. Entities are classified into different entity sets ... " It's not clear here what an entity is and what our mind is. Entities cannot be classified into different sets, as Peter Chen wrote, because the sets do can not contain entities.
The authors of "Anchor Modeling" in Section 2.1 define their most important term: "An anchor represents a set of entities, such as a set of actors or events." Note that we do not place physical objects or events in sets. This nonsense is another fact that shows that "Anchor modeling" is plagiarism because the authors do not understand the basic concepts in fundamental theories as it is the set theory.
I presented the main part of my solution on this user group in 2005. I always answered every question. At the time, this user group was translating into more than 10 languages. At that time, discussions about my solution were often daily.
In 2009, The International Conference on Conceptual Modeling was held in Brasil. ER 2009 Best Paper Award: The paper "Anchor Modeling." As far as I know, the honorary chairman of this conference was Peter Chen.
Following my writing on web site of this group about this plagiarism of my
work, the authors of "Anchor modeling" published another paper in which they
took other important things from my papers, presented it like theirs new
theories and try to fix mentioned mistakes.
For example, these authors plagiarized "Identifiers" and "States."
"Identifiers" and "States" are the beginnings and foundations of two new
theories, as I described in this thread, that substantially change all the
software so far. These new solution are about data, logic, semantic and much
more.
I have presented "Identifiers" and "States" in 2005 on this user group and
on my website. This user group has extensively discussed my solution for the
first 5 years and this discussion can be seen on this site.
I wrote about these plagiarism to Peter Chen, he never responded to my letter. This is a brutal plagiarism of the most important scientific results that have an impact on overall software, mathematics, logic, semantics and philosophy.
This second paper on "Anchor modeling" was published shortly, 4 months after my writing on plagiarism in my first paper on "Anchor modeling".
This second paper by authors of „Anchor Modeling“ is published in DKE, Editor-in-Chief: Peter Chen.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Mon Oct 07 2019 - 14:11:26 CEST