On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
> In my post dated December 9, 2019, in thread „The relational model is a wrong
> theory“, I wrote the following facts:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can also see two identifiers:
> 1. The Identifier of an entity.
> 2. The identifier of the state of an entity.
>
> Note that my identifier of state is actually a surrogate key. But when I link it to
> the corresponding identifier of the entity, then it is a very strong and complete
> link. So I have always two identifiers: the identifier of the entity and the
> identifier of an state of the entity.
> --
> Identifiers of entities they are in database and they are in the real world also.
> Because they exist in databases and in the real world, the identifiers of entities
> are not surrogates.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Now I will explain how authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my paper:
> They plagiarized my identifier of an entity and they link all changes to their key.
> This is exactly what I did. In fact I did more. I associate all changes related to
> this entity to the identifier of the entity which is in the database, more precisely I associate all these changes to some memory. But I have also the identifier of
> the entity in the real world. For example I have a small book, which I call
> „passport“ and the identifier of the entity is in the passport.
> The authors od "anchor modeling" call their key - „anchor key“.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This „anchor key“ is a surrogate key which is very bad database solution.
> My identifier of an entity is in the real world and in the database. So my
> identifier of an entity is:
> 1. The identifier of the entity in the real world.
> 2. The identifier of an entity is in the database.
> 3. This my identifier is not surrogate key.
> 4. My Identifier of the entity can work in data warehouse much better then an anchor.
> 5. „Anchor key“ is a special case of my key. If you delete my key from the real world
> and keep only my key in database, you will have „anchor key“.
> That is one reason why my solution to this problem is much more general than "anchor
> modeling".
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This means that "anchor modeling" is only one case, that is, a special case from my
> general solution. It also means that the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my
> main ideas, which were presented to this group and discussed in detail, five years
> before the authors of "anchor modeling" presented their plagiarism.
> My second identifier (that is the identifier of an state of an entity) was deleted by
> authors of "anchor modeling". However they left all changes of an entity and bound
> them to "anchor", which is a copy of my solution.
> In my opinion, this is one of the greatest plagiarism in history.
> ----------------------------------------
> What are we talking about here?
> ----------------------------------------
> This is a problem known from ancient Greece and is known as the Ship of Theseus.
> According to Wikipedia: „In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of
> its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The concept is one of
> the oldest in Western philosophy, having been discussed by the likes of Heraclitus
> and Plato by ca. 500-400 BC and later by Aristotle ."
> Later, many philosophers discussed and tried to solve this problem. For example,
> Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Noam Chomsky.
> We who work with databases may set the following question: How does a person (or an
> entity) who has changed some attributes of his or her identity, for us, remain the
> same person?
>
> I solved this problem as an effective procedure with the help of my two identifiers
> and with the help of some other mentioned new solutions. I also found a procedure
> that binds all changes to an identifier of entity and this is exactly what the
> authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized for the process of changes and connecting
> these changes to "anchor").
> This my solution to the problem, which has not been solved for 2500 years, has been
> gradually plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling". Then they plagiarized my
> scientific results and declared it as their scientific results.
> The problem mentioned above, has not been solved for 2500 years. I solved this
> problem long before 2005, but presented it to this user group in 2005. The authors of
> "anchor modeling" gradually plagiarized my scientific papers. In December 2009, the
> authors of "anchor modeling" published their first work. The authors of "anchor
> modeling" published their second paper in DKE in December 2010. After my critique of
> errors and plagiarism of the authors of "anchor modeling" on this user group, they
> published their second paper, in which they plagiarized the most significant of my
> results. I have presented in this thread some of these plagiarism.
> Following my public criticisms of plagiarism published in the first paper of "anchor
> modeling", presented on this user group, the authors of "anchor modeling" published
> their second paper in the journal DKE, Editor-in-Chief Peter Chen.
> This time, they introduce "identifiers" on the most complex concept, that is the
> identifier of the relationship. You can see this in Definition 16 in their paper
> published in DKE.
> Of course, these complex identifies are solved in my papers from 2005.
>
> In their second paper, section 4.5, the authors of "anchor modeling" „introduce“
> "states".
> Let me note, that this nonchalant introduction to these basic concepts(identifiers
> and states) presented by authors of "anchor modeling" is one of the greatest
> plagiarism in history.
> Notice that states and identifiers are fundamental concepts for the beginnings of a
> completely new database theory. These two concepts significantly influence the
> fundamental things in Logic, Semantics, Meaning, and Theory of Thoughts. For example:
>
> 1. I am not speaking about Truth and Meaning.
> 2. I am speaking about truth and meaning in the past, in the present and in the
> future and what is the most important my database can do it very precisely.
>
> I also want to present that authors of "anchor modeling" gradually and carefully
> introduce plagiarism, so this is hard to notice this plagiarism.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In Brazil, the first paper from "anchor modeling" received the first prize, the
> honorary president of the congress was Peter Chen.
> The second paper (that is, the repair of the first, award-winning paper) was
> published in the scientific journal DKE, where Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please note that I have been explaining my papers in detail on this user group since
> 2005.
>
> Vladimir Odrljin

I will first define some basic terms.
1. Sixth normal form or 6NF as an abbreviation.
Relvar is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key, plus at most one additional attribute.

What is this all about?
This is about atomic data structures.
This is not about normal forms.
Atomic data structures are more important than "normal forms".

Here we have two names for one scientific paper. The meanings of these two names differ significantly.

The first name is: "Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for
Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data". This name is presented in Brazil at the International
Conference on Conceptual Modeling ER 2009, and at Springer, which presents all scientific conferences.

The second name is "Anchor modeling". That name was presented by the authors on Wikipedia, recently,
in the „Reference“ section.
..
Here is the problem in the part of the text that is in the title. In the original version, their scientific paper
has the following part of the text in the title: "using the Sixth Normal Form".
Sixth Normal Form (6NF for short cut) is a failed attempt to obtain "atomic data structures", which is a
basic problem of database theory.
However, even with the most careful study of the definition of 6NF, no one can obtain data atomic
structures based on the definition of 6NF. 6NF is just a name.

Dana srijeda, 4. kolovoza 2021. u 12:34:46 UTC+2 korisnik vldm10 napisao je:
> On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:50:24 PM UTC+1, vldm10 wrote:
> > In my post dated December 9, 2019, in thread „The relational model is a wrong
> > theory“, I wrote the following facts:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > You can also see two identifiers:
> > 1. The Identifier of an entity.
> > 2. The identifier of the state of an entity.
> >
> > Note that my identifier of state is actually a surrogate key. But when I link it to
> > the corresponding identifier of the entity, then it is a very strong and complete
> > link. So I have always two identifiers: the identifier of the entity and the
> > identifier of an state of the entity.
> > --
> > Identifiers of entities they are in database and they are in the real world also.
> > Because they exist in databases and in the real world, the identifiers of entities
> > are not surrogates.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Now I will explain how authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my paper:
> > They plagiarized my identifier of an entity and they link all changes to their key.
> > This is exactly what I did. In fact I did more. I associate all changes related to
> > this entity to the identifier of the entity which is in the database, more precisely I associate all these changes to some memory. But I have also the identifier of
> > the entity in the real world. For example I have a small book, which I call
> > „passport“ and the identifier of the entity is in the passport.
> > The authors od "anchor modeling" call their key - „anchor key“.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This „anchor key“ is a surrogate key which is very bad database solution.
> > My identifier of an entity is in the real world and in the database. So my
> > identifier of an entity is:
> > 1. The identifier of the entity in the real world.
> > 2. The identifier of an entity is in the database.
> > 3. This my identifier is not surrogate key.
> > 4. My Identifier of the entity can work in data warehouse much better then an anchor.
> > 5. „Anchor key“ is a special case of my key. If you delete my key from the real world
> > and keep only my key in database, you will have „anchor key“.
> > That is one reason why my solution to this problem is much more general than "anchor
> > modeling".
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This means that "anchor modeling" is only one case, that is, a special case from my
> > general solution. It also means that the authors of "anchor modeling" plagiarized my
> > main ideas, which were presented to this group and discussed in detail, five years
> > before the authors of "anchor modeling" presented their plagiarism.
> > My second identifier (that is the identifier of an state of an entity) was deleted by
> > authors of "anchor modeling". However they left all changes of an entity and bound
> > them to "anchor", which is a copy of my solution.
> > In my opinion, this is one of the greatest plagiarism in history.
> > ----------------------------------------
> > What are we talking about here?
> > ----------------------------------------
> > This is a problem known from ancient Greece and is known as the Ship of Theseus.
> > According to Wikipedia: „In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of
> > its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The concept is one of
> > the oldest in Western philosophy, having been discussed by the likes of Heraclitus
> > and Plato by ca. 500-400 BC and later by Aristotle ."
> > Later, many philosophers discussed and tried to solve this problem. For example,
> > Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Noam Chomsky.
> > We who work with databases may set the following question: How does a person (or an
> > entity) who has changed some attributes of his or her identity, for us, remain the
> > same person?
> >
> > I solved this problem as an effective procedure with the help of my two identifiers
> > and with the help of some other mentioned new solutions. I also found a procedure
> > that binds all changes to an identifier of entity and this is exactly what the
> > authors of „anchor modeling“ plagiarized for the process of changes and connecting
> > these changes to "anchor").
> > This my solution to the problem, which has not been solved for 2500 years, has been
> > gradually plagiarized by the authors of "anchor modeling". Then they plagiarized my
> > scientific results and declared it as their scientific results.
> > The problem mentioned above, has not been solved for 2500 years. I solved this
> > problem long before 2005, but presented it to this user group in 2005. The authors of
> > "anchor modeling" gradually plagiarized my scientific papers. In December 2009, the
> > authors of "anchor modeling" published their first work. The authors of "anchor
> > modeling" published their second paper in DKE in December 2010. After my critique of
> > errors and plagiarism of the authors of "anchor modeling" on this user group, they
> > published their second paper, in which they plagiarized the most significant of my
> > results. I have presented in this thread some of these plagiarism.
> > Following my public criticisms of plagiarism published in the first paper of "anchor
> > modeling", presented on this user group, the authors of "anchor modeling" published
> > their second paper in the journal DKE, Editor-in-Chief Peter Chen.
> > This time, they introduce "identifiers" on the most complex concept, that is the
> > identifier of the relationship. You can see this in Definition 16 in their paper
> > published in DKE.
> > Of course, these complex identifies are solved in my papers from 2005.
> >
> > In their second paper, section 4.5, the authors of "anchor modeling" „introduce“
> > "states".
> > Let me note, that this nonchalant introduction to these basic concepts(identifiers
> > and states) presented by authors of "anchor modeling" is one of the greatest
> > plagiarism in history.
> > Notice that states and identifiers are fundamental concepts for the beginnings of a
> > completely new database theory. These two concepts significantly influence the
> > fundamental things in Logic, Semantics, Meaning, and Theory of Thoughts.. For example:
> >
> > 1. I am not speaking about Truth and Meaning.
> > 2. I am speaking about truth and meaning in the past, in the present and in the
> > future and what is the most important my database can do it very precisely.
> >
> > I also want to present that authors of "anchor modeling" gradually and carefully
> > introduce plagiarism, so this is hard to notice this plagiarism.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > In Brazil, the first paper from "anchor modeling" received the first prize, the
> > honorary president of the congress was Peter Chen.
> > The second paper (that is, the repair of the first, award-winning paper) was
> > published in the scientific journal DKE, where Editor-in-Chief is Peter Chen.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Please note that I have been explaining my papers in detail on this user group since
> > 2005.
> >
> > Vladimir Odrljin
> I will first define some basic terms.
> 1. Sixth normal form or 6NF as an abbreviation.
> Relvar is in 6NF if and only if it consists of a single key, plus at most one additional attribute.
> What is this all about?
> This is about atomic data structures.
> This is not about normal forms.
> Atomic data structures are more important than "normal forms".
>
> Here we have two names for one scientific paper. The meanings of these two names differ significantly.
>
> The first name is: "Anchor Modeling An Agile Modeling Technique using the Sixth Normal Form for
> Structurally and Temporally Evolving Data". This name is presented in Brazil at the International
> Conference on Conceptual Modeling ER 2009, and at Springer, which presents all scientific conferences.
>
> The second name is "Anchor modeling". That name was presented by the authors on Wikipedia, recently,
> in the „Reference“ section.
> .
> Here is the problem in the part of the text that is in the title. In the original version, their scientific paper
> has the following part of the text in the title: "using the Sixth Normal Form".
> Sixth Normal Form (6NF for short cut) is a failed attempt to obtain "atomic data structures", which is a
> basic problem of database theory.
> However, even with the most careful study of the definition of 6NF, no one can obtain data atomic
> structures based on the definition of 6NF. 6NF is just a name.
>
> So the authors of “anchor modeling” in the title of their award-winning scientific paper wrote,
> “using the sixth normal form” which is nonsense because 6NF doesn’t show at all how to get
> atomic data structures. This nonsense with 6NF in the title of their paper is the reason why the authors
> changed the title of their award-winning paper.
> Every database professional knows that the best solution is a structure that has a key and one attribute.
> So we do not need 6NF. We need decomposition on atomic data structures.
>
> The real reason why the authors of "anchor modeling" changed the title of their scientific paper is
> this great nonsense „using 6NF“, which the authors of "anchor modeling" put in the title of their
> scientific paper. I posted this nonsense earlier in this thread.
>
> As you can see the decomposition on atomic data structures is only solved in my scientific papers.
>
> Vladimir Odrljin