While I googled to understand the Unary associations, I got the following two explanations:
the first is:
A unary relationship is when both participants in the relationship are
the same entity. For Example: Subjects may be prerequisites for other
subjects, or one employee manages many Employees.
and the second is:
Class B knows about ClassA.
Class A does not know about ClassB.
Now lets look at the following example:
You can see the Person and Address relationship below. We call this
relationship as has-a relationship since person has a address. So
Person knows the address but address does not know anything about
person
Am I misunderstanding something?
Common language
The arity of an association is about how many classes are associated. This is an ambiguous concept since some understand different classes, whereas others understand instances.
When applied to unary, the first interpretation would mean reflexive association (or self-association, i.e. a class associated with iteself), whereas the second would mean a class associated with nothing (not very useful: any class could be associated with nothing else).
UML perspective
Fortunately, the UML specifications are much more precise than the common language:
An Association specifies a semantic relationship that can occur between typed instances. It has at least two memberEnds represented by Properties, each of which has the type of the end. More than one end of the Association may have the same type.
So in UML there is no "unary association". It's binary, ternary, or n-ary (terms used in the specs). There is no special term in UML for a binary association with the same class at both ends. But reflexive or self-association are terms which are more popular than unary.
E/R modeling
The term "unary" is popular in the context of entity-relationship modeling, to describe a relation in a relational database. Relations correspond more or less to an association in UML, and entities to classes, but there are some subtle semantic differences. E/R has its foundation in the set theory. And if a relation is between the same entities, it means in fact that only one set is involved. This is probably why unary is more popular in this context.
Merriam-webster defines Unary as
having, consisting of, or acting on a single element, item, or
component
So the first explanation is correct one since this type of association acts on a single class. The term Unary however is not used in UML and might be confusing.
UML uses the term binary to indicate that an association has two ends, and ternary or n-ary to indicate an association has multiple ends.
The Unary association you are talking about is actually a binary association to itself, also known as reflexive association.
Not to be confused with a Unidirectional association, which is an association that is only navigable (has an arrow) to one side.
Related
In an UML class diagram:
a) Do you have to state attributes that are aggregated? Or is it enough with the arrows indicating aggregation?
b) Do I have to add "id" as an attribute or is it a given?
Thanks.
You are using a shared aggregation in the picture. That does not have any defined semantics as per UML 2.5 (see p. 110). If you need a composite aggregation the diamond must be filled. In that case the aggregated object will be deleted along with the aggregating one (the latter must assure that constraint). In your model it makes no sense. No employee aggregates a department. Even vice versa I would have doubts or at least reason for discussion.
An id is only needed if it has a business purpose (e.g. an article number). If you transform your model to a database you introduce an artificial id for technical reasons. But on an abstract business level they are not modeled.
Your models only differ in the use of attributes for associated classes. The B variant is preferred. But you need to place the attributes as role names towards the associated classes (as -department and -branch). What you have placed in the middle of the connectors is rather the association name. Badly chosen with the + in front. Naming associations is rarely needed. So get rid of that. Role names shall be placed near the class that takes the role. Also it's a good idea to use the dot-notation to show that the roles represent owned properties. Just place a small black dot near the left hand side of both (near where the role names should go).
As for the dot-notation UML 2.5 states on p. 18:
Dot notation is used to denote association end ownership, where the dot shows that the Class at the other end of the line owns the Property whose type is the Class touched by the dot. See 11.5.4 for details of Association notation and 11.5.5 for examples.
Also as JimL. commented the A-version uses associations plus attributes which introduces redundancy. This is not illegal but likely not intended and at least leads to confusion.
I'm making a class diagram in UML, and I can't find information about this topic.
Can I have a class in several associations-classes?
here's an example:
Message should be an association class between user and group, but also between user and channel.
Is this allowed or is there any other way to do this?
thank you!
What is an association class?
When looking at the graphical notation of an association class, we could be mislead to think that an association-class is simply a class that is attached to an association.
But the association class is in reality an association AND AT THE SAME TIME a class:
UML 2.5.1 / Section 11.5.3.2: An AssociationClass is a declaration of an Association that has a set of Features of its own. An AssociationClass is both an Association and a Class, and preserves the static and dynamic semantics of both.
So in the modelling semantic, beyond the notation, you cannot separate the association class from the corresponding association. If you're not convinced yet, here the next sentence in the specifications:
An AssociationClass describes a set of objects that each share the same specifications of Features, Constraints, and semantics entailed by the AssociationClass as a kind of Class, and correspond to a unique link instantiating the AssociationClass as a kind of Association.
(links are instances of an association and correspond to tuples with "one value for each memberEnd of the Association")
What are the consequence of the association-class duality?
The consequence is that the same association-class cannot exist in multiple flavors that would each associate different sets of classes.
While nothing in the notation prevents you from adding a doted line to seemngly "attach" the same class to two different associations as Bruno explains, this notation would not correspond to a valid UML semantic.
Alternatives
Your question underlines an interesting design issue. And fortunately, there are plenty of ways to solve it. For example:
User class is associated to an abstract Destination class. Message would be the association-class. Destination would be specialized into Group and Chanel that would both inherit the association (no need to duplicate the association graphically). (Edit: as underlined by Axel Scheithauer in the comments, the association and the association class being one and the same, they must have the same name)
Forget about the association class. Make Message a normal class, associated with User. Associate it also with Group and Chanel. If necessary, add an {xor} constraint between these two associations if they are mutually exclusive.
The fact that you currently have a many-to-many association only with Group and not with Channel, suggest that there are some significant differences and would speak in favor of (2) rather than (1).
Not related: Something weird in your current model?
Regardless of the association-classtopic, you current model raises some questions regarding the many-to-many association with Group:
do you meant that several users can send a same message to several groups?
or do you mean that a user can send messages to a group and the group is made of several users?
In the latter case, you should go for 2 distinct associations: one for the sending association, and one for the group membership association (see the red association in the diagrams above).
This is a very interesting question.
In formal/2017-12-05 there is nothing in Figure 11.25 Associations page 199 nor in § 11.5.3.2 Association Classes starting page 200 nor in § 11.8.2 AssociationClass [Class] starting page 220 saying a class cannot be used for several associations-classes.
So for me it is allowed to have
but warning, the name of the class and the name of the association must be the same, from formal/2017-12-05 § 11.5.3.2 Association Classes page 200 :
Both Association and Class are Classifiers and hence have a set of common properties, like being able to have Features,
having a name, etc. These properties are multiply inherited from the same construct (Classifier), and are not duplicated.
Therefore, an AssociationClass has only one name, and has the set of Features that are defined for Classes and
Associations.
Then the class cannot be named Message and the associations sends if you want to make association-class.
Note class and an association are NamedElement (§ 7.8.9 NamedElement [Abstract Class] from page 47), a given name can be used for several NamedElement but to co-exist in the same Namespace two NamedElements must be distinguishable. From formal/2017-12-05 § 7.8.9.7 Operations page 49 :
isDistinguishableFrom(n : NamedElement, ns : Namespace) : Boolean
The query isDistinguishableFrom() determines whether two NamedElements may logically co-exist within a
Namespace. By default, two named elements are distinguishable if (a) they have types neither of which is a
kind of the other or (b) they have different names.
Then the two associations Message must be in different namespaces because they have the same name.
If you want Message to be an instance of a UML Association Class that connects User to Group and Channel, you can connect one end property of the Message association to an instance of a UML Class that is the union of Group and Channel.
To construct a union class, make it the general end of two instances of UML Generalization and make it abstract. The specific end of one generalization would be Group, and the other would be Channel. For extra clarity, put the generalizations into an instance of a UML Generalization Set that is {complete}.
I am looking for a way to modelize ethereum smart contracts interaction using a modeling language like UML.
I have the following serivce Contract:
contract ServiceContract {
constructor (address _storeC, address _quizC, address _signC) {
StorageContract storeC = StoreContract(_storeC);
QuizContract quizC = QuizContract(_quizC);
SignatureContract signC = SignatureContract(_signC);
}
function storeData (bytes32 data) public {
storeC.save(data);
}
function getAnswer( bytes32 question) public constant returns (bytes32) {
return quizC.get(question);
}
function sign (bytes32 data) public returns (bytes32) {
return signC.sign(data);
}
}
I modelized it with this class diagram, is it correct?
[Edited for extra clarification]
Modelling a system is describing it in a formal way using a modelling language, and in some cases following some common guidelines. In this case you suggest the use of UML (See UML Specification).
UML diagrams can be divided into three categories:
Structural: The common structure, the values, the classifiers and the packages are in this category
Behavioral: The common behavior, the actions, state machines, the activities and the interactions are in this category.
Suplemental: The use cases, the deployments and the information flows are in this category.
As a modeler you decide which diagrams do you you need for what target you want to apply.
In your question you say that you are looking for a way to modelize an interaction. That is within the behavioral category. However you provide a sample code and a proposed class diagram, which is within the structural category.
That being said, is it your proposed diagram correct? I would say that it is inaccurate and incomplete (but not necessarily incorrect). Let me explain this a bit further.
In your proposed diagram you have four classes: ServiceContract, StorageContract, QuizContract and SignatureContract. You have drawn a relationship between the classes that is known as a dependency. And this dependency is of a specific type: usage (represented by the «use» keyword). What does this mean in UML?
A dependency in UML is defined as a relation where "the semantics of the clients are not complete without the suppliers" (Section 7.7.3.1 of the UML specification). Moreover, a usage dependency is defined as a relation where "one NamedElement requires another NamedElement (or set of NamedElements) for its full implementation or operation" (Section 7.7.3.2).
Hence, if we apply those defintions to your proposed diagram, you may read the relation between the ServiceContract and the StorageContract as "ServiceContract uses StorageContract". But nothing else. With this diagram you don't know how ServiceContract uses StorageContract, if it uses more than one instance of StorageContract, and so on.
Since you know how those classes are related, you should use a more accurate and complete diagram.
The first step is to use an association instead of a dependency. In UML an association is defined as "a semantic relationship that can occur between typed instances". And you know the semantic relationship between the classes that you are modelling in your class diagram. Therefore it makes more sense to use an association.
An association is represented with a solid line (indeed the UML specification says that it may be drawn as a diamond, but for binary associations it says that normally it is drawn just with a solid line). So let's start changing your diagram to the new one. In the next figure you can see the four classes with the association relationship (still incomplete):
Now that we have the association, we need to define it further. Has the association a name? Can the association be read in both ways? Do we know the multiplicity values for each end of the association? Do the ends of the associations have contraints?
In this example we don't need a name for the association, it seems that it can be read in both ways, and also that the multiplicity values are exactly 1 for all the ends. Then we do not to add anything to the diagram related to these questions. But what about the constraints?
Let's take a look at the source code. When you put this:
contract ServiceContract {
constructor (address _storeC, address _quizC, address _signC) {
StorageContract storeC = StoreContract(_storeC);
QuizContract quizC = QuizContract(_quizC);
SignatureContract signC = SignatureContract(_signC);
}
}
you can express it as "the ServiceContract has (owns) a property named storeC that is of a type of StoreContract", and so on. An ownership in an association is represented by a small filled circle (called a dot), at the point where the line meets the Classifer that is owned. Also you can add the name of the property that holds the ownership (Section 11.5.4). At this point the diagram is like this:
(See the answer from Thomas Kilian)
Since we cannot infer the visibility of the properties from the source, we can just let it as undefined (otherwise we can use a + sign before the name of the property for a public property, a - sign for a private property, a # for a protected property, and a ~ for a package).
Also we can show the properties within the Classifier for ServiceContract instead of at the end of the owned Classifier in the association. This will look like this:
Both styles are allowed by the UML specification (Section 9.5.3), and it also does not enforce any convention. However it mentions the convention for general modelling scenarios "that a Property whose type is a kind of Class is an Association end, while a property whose type is a kind of DataType is not".
This diagram is correct in the sense that it complies with the UML specification, and that it describes a system in which you have:
A Classifier named ServiceContract that owns three properties:
A Property named storeC whose type is a Classifier named StorageContract.
A Property named quizC whose type is a Classifier named QuizContract.
A Property named signC whose type is a Classifier named SignatureContract.
And remember, it is your choice, as a modeler, if this is enough for your target or not.
From the source I can say that the previous diagram is still incomplete and inaccurate. Why?
Because the source includes three Operations (the functions) that are not represented in the diagram. This can be improved in terms of completeness.
Because you cannot say from the diagram if the Classifiers that are owned by the ServiceContract are owned to group together a set of instances of the owned Classifiers or not. And given the case, if the owned Classifiers share the same scope or not. This can be improved in terms of accuracy.
First we are going to add the operations (the functions) to the diagram:
[NOTE: You may also add the _constructor_ to the operations.]
I guess that the functions are public, so I have included the + modifier at the beginning of each operation name.
Now for the accuracy, it seems to me that the ServiceContract groups together the StorageContract, the QuizContract and the SignatureContract in order to provide a common Classifier to access to certain operations (functions). If that is the case, then we are talking about aggregation. In UML aggregation is defined as an association where "one instance is used to group together a set of instances" (Section 9.5.3).
An aggregation can be of two types: shared (or just commonly known as aggregation from previous versions of the specification), and composite (or just commonly known as composition from previous versions of the specification).
The UML specification provides a more or less specific semantics for what it means for an aggregation to be of the type composite: "the composite object has responsibility for the existence and storage of the composed objects".
Let's say that in your case the existence and storage of the StorageContract, the QuizContract and the SignatureContract is responsability of the ServiceContract. Then in that case you have a composite aggregation, that is represented by a black diamond:
And it is read as "ServiceContract is composed by an owned property of classifier type StorageContract called storeC", and so on.
Keep in mind that using a composite type of aggregation you are saying that the ServiceContract object is responsible for the existence and storage. That means that whenever an instance of the ServiceContract is removed/destroyed, the associated StorageContract, QuizContract and SignatureContract must be destroyed also.
If that is not the case, and given that still the assocation matches the aggregation definition, then the only other option available is that the aggregation must be shared. The UML specification explictly does not provide a precise semantics of what a shared aggregation is, leaving the application area and the modeler with the responsability of giving those semantics.
So, if the StorageContract, the QuizContract, and the SignatureContract exist independently of the ServiceContract, and if you agree that the ServiceContract aggregates those objects according to definition given in the UML specification, you must use a shared aggregation.
A shared aggregation is represented by a hollow diamond at the end of the association of the Classifier that aggregates other Classifiers. And this it's how it looks:
And this diagram can be read as:
There are four Classifiers: ServiceContract, StorageContract, QuizContract and SignatureContract.
ServiceContract aggregates three owned properties:
storeC, of type StorageContract.
quizC, of type QuizContract.
signC, of type SignatureContract.
ServiceContract has one constructor that requires three arguments:
_storeC of type address.
_quizC of type address.
_signC of type address.
ServiceContract has three public functions:
storeData, that requires one argument of type bytes32 called data and returns nothing.
getAnswer, that requires one argument of type bytes32 called question and returns a bytes32 data type.
sign, that requires one argument of type bytes32 called data and returns a bytes32 data type.
Keep in mind that maybe for your desired target this final diagram is too detailed. It is your responsability as modeler to decide wether to include some details or not into the diagram.
You simply have associations to these three classes:
(I just drew a single relation)
The role name to the right tells in conjunction with the dot that it's a owned property of the class to the left. Not sure about the visibility (if that's private per default replace the + with a -).
While it may be goodness to spend some time to learn what exact arrow should used for particular Solidity relationship in UML (inheritance, composition etc), general trend is to let standard tool to care about this.
There is sol2uml UML generator https://github.com/naddison36/sol2uml
that is already used on https://etherscan.io
e.g. for USDT
https://etherscan.io/viewsvg?t=1&a=0xdAC17F958D2ee523a2206206994597C13D831ec7
(See image below)
So don't spend time manually drawing lines, use wiser tools to do it quicker for you.
Considerer this:
As far as I know in case 1 a is related to b, and a is aware of b so a is able to send messages to b, but b is not aware of a so b is not able to send messages to a.
In the other hand, in case 2 a is related to b, and both of them are aware of each other, both of them are able to send messages to the other.
But my question is what about that when the relationship is not association but aggregation? Could an aggregation relationship have bidirectional navegability in UML so both instances are aware of each other?
In case a owns b, consequently a is aware of b. (in other words a is able to send messages to b). but what about the other way around, does b is aware of a? or does this could never be the case? or this is just not specified in the diagram and this could be both ways? and, in case b has to be aware of a how would that be expressed(I've never seen an aggregation line with an arrowhead in the other end)?
does all of this applies in the same way for composition?
Another thing slightly related to this I Was wondering, could a non bi-directional association have two roles?
As far as I know this could not be possible because a non bi-directional relationship is a relation when just one of the related instances is aware of the other, and a role means how an instance perceive another one, so we need that both instances are aware of each other to be able to have two roles, is this correct?
Directed associations as per UML 2.5:
A DirectedRelationship represents a relationship between a collection of source model Elements and a collection of target model Elements.
So this does not say much. And in fact you can simply leave it away. There is a concept of non-navigability which explicitly rules out navigation.
Ownership is not shown by an arrow but by a dot near the owning class.
Another cite from Superstructures (p. 200 in chap. 11.5 Associations):
Navigability notation was often used in the past according to an informal convention, whereby non-navigable ends were assumed to be owned by the Association whereas navigable ends were assumed to be owned by the Classifier at the opposite end. This convention is now deprecated. Aggregation type, navigability, and end ownership are separate concepts, each with their own explicit notation. Association ends owned by classes are always navigable, while those owned by associations may be navigable or not.
If you specify a role name that explicitly means you have navigability towards the named class.
An association defines a semantic relationship between classifiers. The instances of an association are a set of tuples relating instances of the classifiers. Eachtuple value may appear at most once. The Association represents a set of connections among instances of the Classifiers. An instance of an Association is a Link, which is atuple of Instances drawn from the corresponding Classifiers
I wonder if there is someone helps me understand every word of the association definition especially the highlighted ones?because I read about it from different resources but all of them say the same words but I would like a more elaborated definition
semantic relationship
This means there's a structural relationship between the things being associated that arises from the problem space. For example: the association Person owns Dog. In a dog licensing application, this relationship is the central concept; the application exists to manage the links between people and dogs. It's a 'semantic' relationship because it has meaning which originates from the problem space.
set of tuples relating instances of the classifiers
A tuple is 'an ordered set of elements' (wikipedia). An example of the Dog-Ownership association could be ("Fido", "Fred") where "Fido" represents a Dog and "Fred" a Person. An association can be represented as a set of tuples in that there is one tuple for each combination of Dog & Person for which the relation holds; e.g.
[("Fido", "Fred"), ("Angel", "Chuck Norris"), ("Boatswain", "Lord Byron")]
Note there are no tuples for pairs where the relationship doesn't hold; e.g. ("Fido", "Lord Byron").
each tuple value may appear at most once
It's not possible for the set to contain duplicates as this would just be saying the same thing twice. So there's no point adding ("Fido", "Fred") again to the list above; we already know Fred owns Fido.
The Association represents a set of connections among instances of the Classifiers
This is just another way to think about the relationship. For each tuple in the set, you can think of a link - or connection - between the related objects.
An instance of an Association is a Link, which is a tuple of Instances
See above. Each tuple represents one linked pair of objects. Links are to Associations as Objects are to Classes. Classes have many objects; Associations have many Links.
Fundamentally associations exist to show where things are systematically linked to other things. Tuples and sets are a way to think about and/or represent those linked things. (In fact I'd quibble somewhat with the definition in your OP: the links in an association can be represented as as a set of tuples: but that's not what they are, it's how they're modelled. The same information could equally be modelled by a Graph, where each object was represented by a vertex (node) and each association an edge.
hth.
EDIT:
Responding to your questions. Looks like you understand it pretty well; some observations.
First, here's how I would model it:
Now to each of your points:
Name: is the name of Association relationship(optional,you can give it a name or not)
I prefer verb phrase based naming as it brings out the meaning of the relationship. My model can be read directly as:
Each Person owns many Dogs (where 'many' means 0 or more)
Each Dog is owned by exactly one Person
Doing so removes the need to name the association explicitly, although you can still do so if you want.
visibility(I am not care about it,at least for now, I didn't realize its importance until now).
I would agree. Personally, I never annotate models with visibility.
Name:(here is the name of MemberEnd ),so,I left its default name in the screenshot
See comment about association naming above. I prefer verb-based naming to role-based: 'owns' is much more explicit in describing the purpose of a relationship than naming the association end 'dog' or 'dogs'.
the owner of memberEnd [...]
Personally: I don't use this. There's a whole other discussion about this that tbh I don't believe has a material impact in most cases.
Navigable [...]
Again I don't use this personally. In reality navigability should be derived from the underlying behaviour. Does it require navigating one way/both? Then set navigability accordingly. However some people like to specify it explicitly, on basis it makes the implementation clearer (If only navigable one way it can be implemented with reference(s) in one class only; if bi-directional it needs references in both directions - with attendant logic to keep things consistent).
Multiplicity
I agree with your selection.
Hope that helps.