Re: The original version

Def 5 (Historized Attribute). A historized attribute Hatt(C,D, T) for an anchor A(C) is a table with three columns. The domain of C is ID, of D a non-null data type, and of T a non-null time type. Hatt.C is a non-null foreign key with respect to A.C. (HattC,Hatt.T ) is a primary key for Satt.

Definition 7 (Historized Attribute). A historized attribute BH is a string. A historized attribute BH has an anchor A for domain, a data type D for range, and a time type T as time range. An extension of a historized attribute BH is a relation over I x D x T.

Here there are two different definitions of Historized Attribute, the first one from the first version (from 2009) and the second one from the second version (from 2010). This paper is about the most important things in db theory and Historized Attribute is the most important thing of the paper.
These corrections in the second version of Anchor Modeling were made after my public critique on this user group of the first version of the paper.
The following text is my critique of this new version of Anchor Modeling.

(i)

In my paper, a binary concept is precisely defined and under which conditions these binary concepts form an entity (see 4.2.2 and 4.2.6 in my paper). Also, I defined when a given relation can be decomposed into binary relations (see 4.2.8, 4.2.9, 6.4, and 6.5) http://www.dbdesign11.com
I also published these results on my website http://www.dbdesign10.com on May 15, 2006 and on the mentioned user group. Therefore, my paper shows how and under which conditions binary concepts, binary relations, and binary files can be constructed.
(We can note that before we construct a structure which maintains the
history of an entity, we should define the entity.) Many people have worked on this and the entire theory of normal forms was headed toward binary relations. Binary structures were also sought after in logic and semantics. Now, all of a sudden, the authors of Anchor Modeling introduce binary structures, and only by definition!
(see above Definition 7)

(ii)

It is well known in Mathematics that extensions of properties cannot always be introduced through definitions. Russell’s paradox is a wellknown  example. This matter with properties can be complex – here are just a few examples: Hilary Putnam, the renowned mathematician and philosopher says: A Lemon is a lemon even if its (attribute) color is green. The French philosopher Merleau-Ponty writes: when at night we walk past a cherry tree and we see black fruits, we know that they are actually red and that they are cherries. Thus, this “brief” introduction of attributes, in fact, historized attributes, is unusual. In my paper from 2008, in (3.3.3) the following construction is introduced:

      S (the m-attribute, the concept of the property) = T iff
      the m-attribute matches the entity’s attribute.           ……..…

In this construction a concept of an entity’s property is not enough. Rather, identification of the corresponding attribute is also necessary (see section 3.3).

If we only have a concept, then we could also make concepts of imaginary entities, like the horse Pegasus, which has wings and isn’t real. (3.3.3) also indicates that a subject can identify only those attributes for which it has the ability. In other words, the subject’s ability determines the domain of a property in a general case, and even in the case of an “evolving data environment”. The construction
(3.3.3) in my paper has a broader meaning.

In my paper, an attribute is always determined by a corresponding concept of a property, not with a relation (see Section 3.3 in my paper).

(iii)

An extension is not defined in the definition of historized attributes. If it is an extension of a concept, then this is solved better in my paper. This means again that Anchor Modeling is a paper with results that I already had published in my paper from 2008. This part of my paper is precisely defined: an extension is defined in 4.2.1, and in Section 2, a concept is defined. In Anchor Modeling these terms are left undefined.
My definition of a concept is oriented toward the construction and identification of abstract objects. The identification of abstract objects using concepts has been solved in my paper. For example, identification of m-n relationships that change their states is a complex and serious problem. I use the identifier of a relationship to identify these relationships. I devoted one section of my paper to the identification. Now, in the new version of their paper, the authors of Anchor Modeling also introduce the identifier of a relationship in definition 16. In this way, they have introduced two key objects from my paper into theirs, which fundamentally change it (extension and identifier of relationship).
So I decided to complain to journal DKE.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Mon Dec 13 2010 - 01:11:06 CET