Anchor modeling is a brutal plagiarism of my paper – Part I

From: vldm10 <vldm10_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 05:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5222290a-8aaf-4d36-9ac3-d65c6542c42d_at_googlegroups.com>

In my work "Some ideas about a new data model", posted on September 17, 2005, on my private web site: www.dbdesign10.com , in section 1.1, I wrote the following:

---

We determine the Conceptual Model so that every entity and every relationship has only one attribute, all of whose values are distinct. So this attribute doesn’t have two of the same values. We will call this attribute the Identifier of the state of an entity or relationship. We will denote this attribute by the symbol Ack. All other attributes can have values which are the same for some different members of an entity set or a relationship set. Besides Ack, every entity has an attribute which is the Identifier of the entity or can provide identification of the entity. This Identifier has one value for all the states of one entity or relationship.

---

As stated above in Section 1.1, I have determined the following two keys:

Semantic Procedure
(i) The first key: The Identifier of the entity or can provide

      identification of the entity.
(ii) The second key: The Identifier of the state of an entity or

      relationship.

The first key (The Identifier of the entity or can provide identification of

               the entity.)

---

It should be noted that the "The first key" can appear in the following two forms:
1. Identifier of entity or
2. „It can provide identification of the entity.“

    The identifier of an entity (as its name says) identifies the entity.     Note that I am using term „identifiers“, instead of keys. I use this     term, because it ensures real meaning, for my solution.

The authors of "Anchor modeling" plagiarized the second form of the identifier of the entity and it is brutal plagiarism, which is related to the most important results in database theory. These results are important for some fundamental results in some other sciences.As you can see from this post, this is the case from my solution, listed above :

                         2. „It can provide identification of the entity.“

[Quoted] This key is known as the "surrogate key". However, the authors of "Anchor Modeling" did not understand two very important things, these things are:

(i) Surrogate key is not the only type of key that can "provide

     identification of the entity."
(ii) The second key, that is, the Identifier of the state of an entity.
  

My solution by using the surrogate key is the following:

---

The first key je surrogate key (it is a kind of an indirect identifier of an entity)
The second key je The identifier of the state of an entity

---

As we can see, "Anchoring Modeling" does not have „the second key“, that is, the identifier of the state of an entity. They did not notice this key and it relations with the first key. This is a big misunderstanding of authors of „Anchor Modeling“. Note that this is the semantic procedure and that this my solution is the first solution which combine more than one key to determine complex semantic for state of an entity. Once again, this is not an identifier of an entity. This is the identifier of the state of an entity.This my solution is the way how to solve and apply the complex semantic procedure. I believe this is a new field in semantics.

If a surrogate key is used, then in the project documentation, it should be written that it is not an entity identifier, it is surrogate key, that: „ It can provide identification of the entity“.

Obviously, my solution is of a general nature, it solves the case with surrogates, contrary to my general solution, Anchor modeling is just a special case of my general solution.

The second key (The Identifier of the state of an entity or relationship.)

---

The identifier of the state is not a surrogate key, as some have said in this user group. This is completely new semantic procedure. Here, my goal was to formally describe the semantics of the state of the entity. This is not about the entity, but about the state of one entity. The state of the entity has a very strong connection with the real world. For each state of an entity, an identifier of that entity is associated. In this way, a semantic relation to the states is realized because the identifier of an entity identifies this entity, which is from the real world. The state of the entity also contains one attribute of the entity. The attribute is from the real entity. The state of the entity contains appropriate time and the name of the operator who entered these data. Note that time is real. Please note that I do not use terms as key and foreign key. I prefer use the term the entity, the state of the entity, the identifier of the entity and the identifier of the state of the entity. The reason for this is the semantic nature of my database.

--

On this user group, this my first paper was first introduced on September 
23, 2005 under the heading "Database Design, Keys and other things."

Four years after my first paper, 'Anchor Modeling' was presented and 
received the first prize at 'Conceptual Modeling - ER 2009. 28th 
International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Gramado, Brazil, November 
9-12, 2009'

In the first four years (before the release of „Anchor Modeling“), there was 
an intensive discussion related to my solution on this user group.

Vladimir Odrljin

Received on Sun Aug 12 2018 - 14:08:50 CEST