Re: The anatomy of plagiarism that was made by authors of "Anchor Modeling"

From: vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1c62cc73-299a-44e7-9099-cdc95c09a96a_at_googlegroups.com>



In this post, I will describe the anatomy of plagiarism of "states" from my work. This plagiarism was made by the authors of "Anchor Modeling". First I would like to say that the key thing here is the idea. It is the idea about the world. Here I think of some small world, with which will be possible to operate via information, ie by using some database. I will remind you that some mathematicians already tried to implement a similar idea. Saul Kripke introduced possible worlds. This idea did not bring a solution, because their own basic concepts are not defined. It is not clear what the world is. It is also not clear what it is a possible world. Another theory was done by John Barwise, it's Situation Theory. But this theory also did not provide a solution. Barwise was good and talented mathematician, but he died relatively young.
Here comes the most serious problem. It is primarily the following problem - how the world is constructed.
My solution to these problems is the introduction of states. Some small world has its own states. Depending on the time of observation of this world, we can define the current state, the history of past states, and the history of the future states. These states we can manage by using data. I use Entity / Relationship mathematics and philosophy, for which I have found that it is defined by Kurt Gödel. So I built the theory of states of entities and relationships, introduced a number of other things and developed a model that fully resolves the problem of changes, history, and many other things. Obviously, states are the most important part of my solution. My solution that uses "states", for the first time solves many important things. I will mention now some of these things:

1.
Today's logical theory deals with the current states. My introduction to states, provides that we can work with thoughts and statements about the past. Given that
"past" is a very broad term, it is clear that "states" as defined in my paper,
completely and accurately solve the problem of "truth and the past".

2.
Given that my solution precisely defines states of entities and relationships, this means that it is now possible to precisely work the semantics of the past tense.

3.
In Model theory, when we use objects (or relationships), then the corresponding interpretation must be done for the corresponding states of objects / relationships. In other words, interpretations depend on states of objects / relationships.

4.
As I wrote, identifiers of states enable the "decomposition into atomic structures". They also provide a link between atomic facts and the corresponding factual sentences. In my paper "Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines" I presented that facts are thoughts that correspond to atomic structures. Based on them, we make complex thoughts ie corresponding complex sentences.

5.
Solutions from my paper "Semantic databases and semantic machines" enable that databases can maintain certain history of states from futures. So my database solution allows you to manage states of the past, present and future.

In the above text, I wanted to explain the importance of the idea of "states". Plagiarising "states" from my papers, authors of "Anchor Modeling" did plagiarism of important theory that addresses to a number of very important things. Some of these fundamental things are listed in the mentioned five points. So I want to point to plagiarism of the large-scale.

I will now explain the anatomy of this plagiarism. In my thread "The original version" I described plagiarism that did the authors of
"Anchor Modeling" in their first work from 2009th
I also described the great errors from "Anchor Modeling" referring to parts of their work that are not plagiarism. One of the catastrophic errors of the main work of
"Anchor Modeling" which won first prize at the congress ER - 2009, is the following:
The authors of Anchor Modeling are using both data models, ERM and RM. In the thread
"The original version" I turned attention to this big mistake because the problem of
mapping from one to another data model is not resolved, except in my solution. With such a large error, the paper "Anchor Modeling" is very bad, because the problem of mapping between different data models, is known and there are a number of papers in this field, from very well-known authors. Obviously, this is not known to the authors of "Anchor Modeling". What's stranger, that in spite of these errors, they got first prize at the ER, 2009.
After my presentation of errors of "Anchor Modeling" to this user group, authors of
"Anchor Modeling" in a short time, they released their second paper in which they
fixed mentioned big mistake. The authors of "Anchor Modeling" fixed these errors as follows: they were again plagiarized my results from my paper. They plagiarized my theory about "states" and even my technique. They plagiarized my identifier of states of relationships. We can notice that this is the most complex case with the states. The states are the most important part of my model.

Please note that I did states in 2005, five years prior this their work in which they plagiarized states. At the Congress ER-2009 where the "Anchor Modeling" won the first prize, for their first paper, Mr. Peter Chen was honorary president. This second paper of "Anchor Modeling" was published by Data & Knowledge Engineering" journal, which Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.
I sent my claim of plagiarism to Dr. Peter Chen, the Editor-in-Chief of the mentioned journal. Here is Mr. P. Chen's response that he sent me four years ago:



Dear Mr. Odrljin:  

This is the acknowledgment of your message. After investigation, we will respond to you.
In the meantime, please send us your mailing address and organization affiliation (if any).  

Sincerely Yours,
-P. Chen

Editor-in-Chief
Data & Knowledge Engineering Journal



I never received a response about "investigation" from Mr. P. Chen. I write about this because on this user group, ten years lasted discussion of my results, from September 2005. I think that discussants have the right to know the truth and what happened.

My message to people from this user group is that when you write something, then they can use copyright option.
 --
Next International conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2015) will be in Stockholm, Sweden. One of the authors of "Anchor Modeling", Mr Paul Johannesson is one of General Co-Chairs of this conference.

In the end, I will give a definition of plagiarism. As I'm US citizen and Croatan citizen and Mr. Peter Chen is US citizen, I will give definition of plagiarism from US University Stanford:
Stanford sees plagiarism as the "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form." (Wikipedia)

Please note that all my papers are stored and displayed on my private website. I pay for this web site.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue Mar 17 2015 - 20:08:21 CET

Original text of this message