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

From: vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b01bf4da-3e8e-41ff-a233-7d2b7fea80ce_at_googlegroups.com>

I published the following papers on my website: [1] Some ideas about a new Data Model, Posted on my website at www.dbdesign10.com

    on September 17, 2005.
[2] Simple Form, posted on May 15, 2006. on my website at www.dbdesign10.com ,

    section 4 and 5.
[3] Database design and data model founded on concept and knowledge constructs,

    posted on my website at www.dbdesign11.com submitted on August 21, 2008 to CIT     journal. Posted on March 7, 2009.
[4] Semantic Databases and Semantic Machines, posted onApril 05, 2012. on my web

    site at www.dbdesign11.com

--
Always, when I published a paper on my website, I have informed about it this user 
group, at the same time. In this way my researches have enabled the following:
1. to be immediately available, after it posted on my website
2. to be globally available
3. to be free 
4. to enable that another user groups can use my papers

In this way, my papers are more credible than papers published in journals. My papers 
have a global approach, are currently available, free and discussed in another user 
groups.
--
In paper [1], I solved "History", completely. This General db theory is based on 
states. It is completely a new approach to db theory. I did decomposition for General 
db and much more. But what I could not do, it was the decomposition for simpledb.
So, I have managed to solve more complex case, that is the decomposition for General
db in [1]. Then I realized that these are two cases. One case is the
decomposition for db that maintain state. Another case is the decomposition for db 
that maintain only current state.
For db which maintain only current state, I have introduced a Simple Form. This was 
done in my paper [2].

1.
Anchor Key is a special case of Simple form.
=================================

In my paper [2], section 4.1, may 2006,  I wrote the following: 
"In fact Simple Form suggests that a "good" design starts at the conceptual level. 
The design of an entity (relationship) should satisfy two conditions:


(a)    The construction of the key so that key is simple.


(b)    The attributes of an entity (relationship) should be mutually independent.


Of course, this second condition is natural. The attributes of an entity 


(relationship) in the real world are not dependent.


The conditions for Simple Form, that the key is simple and that the attributes are 
mutually independent, in fact, mean that relational schema R is in 2NF, 3NF, BCNF, 
5NF(PJ/NF) and that the relation is equal to the join of its binary relations."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that this second condition, which is marked with (b), does not exist in "Anchor 
Modeling" on ERM level. Therefore, "Anchor key" is not accurate. So "Anchor Key" is 
wrong at the theoretical level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason why "Anchor Key" is not correct, is the following error: it is not 
applied Leibniz's law and it is not applied my extension of Leibniz's law.
Therefore, "Anchor Key" (that is a surrogate key) is incorrect. Moreover, it is not 
known at all, how is constructed this surrogate key (Anchor key). Obviously, the 
authors are not generally aware of this fact. Of course, this is not science. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my paper [1], 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. I 
already wrote that the following:" or can provide identification of the entity 
"refers to a surrogate key, but more importantly, it does not have to be a surrogate 
key, it can be anything that provides the identification of entities. So, again, the
most important thing here is "it can be anything that provides the identification of 
entities." If you want, it can be a police dog or semantic machines.

So, it is a special story and a very important story, about what can be the 
identifier of an entity. I especially described it in my "theory of identification".
With the introduction of Simple Form, this part of the theory is completely covered. 
As I already wrote, Simple Form covers the surrogate key and much more.
Once again, I will take this example which I have already shown in thread-u  "Does 
the phrase " Russell's paradox " should be replaced with another phrase?":
Example: Honda dealer received 200 new Honda Civic cars, which all have the same 
attributes. Imagine now that someone has wiped out all the VIN numbers from these 
Honda Civic. Then we get 200 cars that have all the attributes the same. 
If in this situation we apply surrogates, then we will get a disaster. If we keep the 
industry-standard identifiers, then we do not need surrogates.
Note that this problem with a surrogate key, there is for all industrial products of 
this type.
As I already wrote the surrogate key can be applied in very small number of cases. 

Conclusion
=========
In this post, it is shown that "Anchor Key" (that is the surrogate key) is 
incorrectly constructed. It was also shown, that I had already given the general 
conditions for identifier of an entity and that "surrogate key" is only a special 
case of my Simple Form.

All important results in their first and the main paper from 2009, authors of Anchor 
Modeling plagiarized from my paper.
The authors of "Anchor modeling" introduced a few "new" fewer important things in 
this their work from 2009. For all these their "new results" I have proved that they 
are wrong. This I demonstrated publicly, on this user group in my following threads: 


(i) The original version 


(ii) some information about anchor modeling 



What is the most important here, it is that these are very important results and 
quite new results and ideas in the theory of databases.
To see the reaction of people on these ideas, see my thread "Database design, Keys 
and some other things", posted on this user group in 2005. In that thread in this 
user group the first time I publicly presented these ideas. Of course in the 
beginning, these ideas have provoked suspicious to me. 

Vladimir Odrljin

Received on Wed Mar 11 2015 - 15:42:17 CET