Re: Did the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarize several new theories that are related to general database theory?
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 01:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a7b382f3-43a8-4f15-b740-4ab37725e724_at_googlegroups.com>
I have introduced „atomic structures“, presented on my website and on this user group on September 17, 2005. In this my paper, atomic structures have been obtained for the first time. What is more important, I have presented the procedure that enable the construction of atomic structures.
In this paper history of „atomic structures“ have been obtained and „history“ on the level of „atomic structures“ was solved for the first time.
E. Codd tried to get „atomic data“ by applying the surrogate key. Codd tried to get the atomic data structures in his work, called RM / T. However, Codd did not solve the atomic data structure in this paper.
C.J. Date, Hugh Darwen, and Nikos A. Lorentzos have tried to get „atomic data structures“, using the so-called 6NF.
Neither Codd's RM/T nor Date & Darwen & Lorencos 6NF do not construct
"atomic data" nor decompose data structures on "atomic data".
Entity/Relationship data model and Relational data model have the following fundamental mistake:
If at least one attribute of an entity changes its value, then the changed entity is considered as another entity that is a different object from the original object (and has a different key).
In my solution, one entity may have different states and all of these states
are related to that entity, i.e states are related to the identifier of the
entity.
This, my solution was taken by the authors of Anchor Modeling and they have
declared that my solution is their solution. This plagiarized solution they
called "anchor modeling". By the way, my solution was published on my
website and on this user group, where it was intensively discussed by the
users of this group, sometimes on daily basis. "Anchoring Modeling" was
published five years after the publication of my work.
The authors of "Anchor modeling" referred to 6NF and they put "6NF" in the
title of their paper. They also claim that their model is based on the
Entity / Relationship Model. However, at the beginning of this post - I
wrote about a major error in the Relational Model and the
Entity/Relationship model and that I therefore introduced „the identifier of
the entity and the identifier of the state of the entity“. Authors of
"anchor modeling" plagiarized this my idea and called it "anchor modeling".
And that's a real chaos in "anchor modeling" - they are based on "anchor modeling" and they are based on 6NF. However, (6NF, Entity/Relationship model) and "anchor modeling" exclude each other, as I explained above.
I will remind readers of this text that the definition of "Candidate Key" written by C.J.Date in his book "An Introduction to Database Systems" is as follows:
Let R be a relation. Then a candidate key for R is subset of the set of attributes of R, say K such that:
- Uniqueness property: No two distinct tuples of R have the same value for K.
- Irreducibility property:
No proper subset of K has the uniqueness property.
Note that this definition is based on „set of attributes“ and that key is a set of attributes.
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue May 14 2019 - 10:35:40 CEST