Ownership of association ends by an associated classifier may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle (aka dot).
What impact would it have, in terms of code generation, if an association end belongs to the classifier or to the association itself?
That just means that the owned end represents a property typed with the owned classifier within the owning classifier. It is identical to having the owned property shown in the attributes compartment of the owning classifier. However, showing a association with both classifiers clarifies visibly the connection between both classifiers.
The dot notation is new with UML 2.5. It had been introduced to make ownership clear which in former UML versions was shown more wishy-washy using a navigation which actually tells nothing about ownership.
Related
Trying to distinguish the notions of aggregation and composition I came across to the following:
What do they mean by saying this?
Simple aggregation does not change the meaning of the navigation
across the association between the whole and its parts.
both are directed associations.
It means that if you set one side to composite you can still navigate in both directions. So you can go from the whole to the part as well as from parts to the whole. However, that is only valid if no explicit statement is made else.
Navigability or rather ownership is now indicated by a small dot near the owning class. So if you set the dot near either end it means that this side has control over the association and you can navigate from this side. Having a dot on both sides means you can explicitly navigate to both side. Having no dot just means "you can implement what you like; get it from the context".
E.g. in the following picture Class1 is the owner of the association.
And here it's Class2:
Edit: The UML spec talks about navigation and ownership as orthogonal concepts. You probably need to be a square egghead to believe in that. See associations in uml-diagrams :
"Aggregation type, navigability, and end ownership are orthogonal concepts, ..." which is clearly an overstatement. [...] which clearly makes navigability dependent on ownership.
According to UML specs every Element can have an owner. Whether he has/must have an owner is determined by method mustBeOwned(): Boolean, which by default is true (see 7.8 Classifier Descriptions in specs).
In cases when an element is completely enclosed by its owner (such as a class in a package) it is quite obvious.
However for relationships (normal, directed, generalization, …) I didn't find any specification. Is the "source" (for directed at least) also the owner?
Is it the first common owner in the ownership chain? So for example association between two classes in a same package, the owner of the association would be the package.
Or is it simply not defined and it can be whatever I want?
To be honest, the definition of terms in Superstructures is still very poor.
Looking closer it's even worse (citing from ptc 13-09-05).
Relationships (p. 15)
A Relationship is an Element that specifies some kind of relationship between other Elements. Descendants of Relationship provide semantics appropriate to the concept they represent.
Connector (p. 235)
A Connector specifies links that enables communication between two or more instances. In contrast to Associations, which specify links between any instance of the associated Classifiers, Connectors specify links between instances playing the connected parts only.
I wasn't aware that they made a difference between both. Appears to be quite picky.
Association (p. 206)
An Association classifies a set of tuples representing links between typed instances. An AssociationClass is both an Association and a Class.
No mentioning of Relationship as being a parent.
Now seeking for the truth about owner
owner (p. 37)
/owner : Element [0..1]{union} (opposite Element::ownedElement) The Element that owns this Element.
mustBeOwned (a bit down)
mustBeOwned() : Boolean
The query mustBeOwned() indicates whether Elements of this type must have an owner. Subclasses of Element that do not require an owner must override this operation.
So here one is stuck unless reading to
Association (p 209)
Ownership of Association ends by an associated Classifier may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot. The dot is to be drawn integral to the graphic path of the line, at the point where it meets the Classifier, inserted between the end of the line and the side of the node representing the Classifier. The diameter of the dot shall not exceed half the height of the aggregation diamond, and shall be larger than the width of the line. This avoids visual confusion with the filled diamond notation while ensuring that it can be distinguished from the line. The dot shows that the model includes a Property of the type represented by the Classifier touched by the dot. This Property is owned by the Classifier at the other end. In such a case it is normal to suppress the Property from the attributes compartment of the owning Classifier.
Answer?
Most likely (!) connectors do not have the mustBeOwned constraint and can be owned in which case you will see the dot that has been introduced with 2.5. Else they are probably not owned.
To my understanding, the relation is generally not owned by elements it connects. What is owned is the association (relationship) end's and corresponding attributes/properties. Section 6.4.2. of UML specification 2.4.1 clarified this much better than your linked 2.5 beta. I would suggest that you use the current official version of specs rather than the beta one. I find the 2.5 being kind of unintelligible, the table of contents looks very chaotic.
The Relationship itself exists independently, it has no owner. Except when stated otherwise by concrete type of relationship (as in case of Generalization).
Which brings me to the main point of my answer by question. Why do you need to know?
I have been reading and explaining the specification for years now, but never came across such a specific question, which moreover is relatively clearly stated in the specs.
I would recommend to look at concrete relations and search (Ctrl+F) for "owned" (an Association has more than a page of text on this very topic in detail starting on page 40 in 2.4.1).
I myself have been trying to figure out what can own an instance of Association. I am using 2.4.1. This appears to me to be a(nother) case of the standard not actually being usable.
I haven't looked at all of the specializations of Relationship. I have looked at Association. It inherits owner from Element. The property is noted as a derived union. I can't find any property of Association (or any of its antecedents) that subsets owner. That being the case, I don't see how Association can actually have an owner.
I think that it seems reasonable for a Package to own an association.
I am using a UML tool that certainly does initialize the value of owner for associations. I am programmatically interpreting models created in that tool and using them as input for other modeling tools that I am working on. The makers of the first tool obviously had to just make up / guess at things and now I have to decide whether what they did was actually rational and if I want to agree with their conclusions (which happen to allow Classifiers to own Associations, which I think is weird) or do something else. Thanks OMG. Grrrr.
I wonder if older versions of the spec were any more clear?
I drives me crazy how many books contradicts themselves.
Class A {} class B {void UseA(A a)} //some say this is an association,
no reference is held but communication is possible
Class A {} class B {A a;} //some say this is
aggregration, a reference is held
But many say that holding a reference is still just an association and for aggregation they use a list - IMHO this is the same, it it still a reference.
I am very confused, I would like to understand the problem.
E.g. here: http://aviadezra.blogspot.cz/2009/05/uml-association-aggregation-composition.html - what is the difference between Strong Association and Aggregation, in both cases the author uses a field to store the reference..
Another example:
This is said to be Association:
And this is said to be Aggregration:
public class Professor {
// ...
}
public class Department {
private List<Professor> professorList;
// ..
}
Again, what is the difference? It is a reference in both cases
This question has been, and will be, asked many times in many different variants, because many people, including many high-profile developers, are confused about the meaning of these terms, which have been defined in the UML. Since the question has been asked many times, it has also been answered many times. See, e.g. this answer. I'll try to summarize the UML definitions.
An association between two classes is not established via a method parameter, but rather via reference properties (class attributes), the range/type of which are the associated classes. If the type of a method parameter is a class, this does not establish an association, but a dependency relationship.
It's essential to understand the logical concept of associations first, before looking at how they are coded. An association between object types classifies relationships between objects of those types. For instance, the association Committee-has-ClubMember-as-chair, which is visualized as a connection line in the class diagram shown below, may classify the relationships FinanceCommittee-has-PeterMiller-as-chair, RecruitmentCommittee-has-SusanSmith-as-chair and AdvisoryCommittee-has-SarahAnderson-as-chair, where the objects PeterMiller, SusanSmith and SarahAnderson are of type ClubMember, and the objects FinanceCommittee, RecruitmentCommittee and AdvisoryCommittee are of type Committee.
An association is always encoded by means of reference properties, the range/type of which is the associated class. For instance, like so
class Committee { ClubMember chair; String name;}
In the UML, aggregation and composition are defined as special forms of associations with the intended meaning of classifying part-whole-relationships. In the case of aggregation, as opposed to composition, the parts of a whole can be shared with other wholes. This is illustrated in the following example of an aggregation, where a course can belong to many degree programs.
The defining characteristic of a composition is to have exclusive (or non-shareable) parts. A composition may come with a life-cycle dependency between the whole and its parts implying that when a whole is destroyed, all of its parts are destroyed with it. However, this only applies to some cases of composition, and not to others, and it is therefore not a defining characteristic. An example of a composition where the parts (components) can be detached from the whole (composite) and therefore survive its destruction, is the following:
See Superstructures 2.1.1:
An association may represent a composite aggregation (i.e., a whole/part relationship). Only binary associations can be aggregations. Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation that requires a part instance be included in at most one composite at a time. If a composite is deleted, all of its parts are normally deleted with it. Note that a part can (where allowed) be removed from a composite before the composite is deleted, and thus not be deleted as part of the composite. Compositions may be linked in a directed acyclic graph with transitive deletion characteristics; that is, deleting an element in one part of the graph will also result in the deletion of all elements of the subgraph below that element. Composition is represented by the isComposite attribute on the part end of the association being set to true.
Navigability means instances participating in links at runtime (instances of an association) can be accessed efficiently from instances participating in links at the other ends of the association. The precise mechanism by which such access is achieved is implementation specific. If an end is not navigable, access from the other ends may or may not be possible, and if it is, it might not be efficient. Note that tools operating on UML models are not prevented from navigating associations from non-navigable ends.
Your above examples are on different abstraction levels. Department/Course are concrete coding classes while Department/Professor are at some abstract business level. Though there is no good source (I know) explaining this fact, composition and aggregation are concepts you will use only on business level and almost never at coding level (exception below). When you are at code level you live much better with Association having role names on both sides. Roles themselves are a different(/redundant!) rendering of properties of a class that refer to the opposite class.
Aggregation as a strong binding between classes is used e.g. in database modeling. Here you can delete a master only if the aggregates have all been deleted previously (or vice vera: deleting the master will force deletion of the aggregates). The aggregate can not live on its own. The composition as in your example is (from my POV) a silly construct as it pretends to be some week aggregation. But that's simply nonsense. Then use an association. Only on a business level you can try to model (e.g.) machine parts as composite. On a concrete level a composition is a useless concept.
tl;dr;
If there is a relation between classes show it as simple association. Adding details like roles will aid when discussing domain details. Use of composition/aggregation is encouraged only when modeling on business level and dis-encouraged on code level.
I've written an article about the differences between UML Association vs Aggregation vs Composition based on the actual UML specification rather then interpretations of book authors.
The primary conclusion being that
In short, the Composition is a type of Association with real constraints and impact on development, whereas the Aggregation is purely a functional indication of the nature of the Association with no technical impact.
Navigability is a completely different property and independent of the AggregationKind.
For one thing, UML is a rich language, meaning there is more than one way to describe the same thing. That's one reason you find different ways described in different books (and conflicting answers on SO).
But a key issue is the huge disconnect between UML and source code. How a specific source code construct is represented in UML, and vice versa, is not part of the UML specification at all. To my knowledge, only one language (Java) has an official UML profile, and that's out of date.
So the representation of specific source-language constructs are left to the tool vendors, and therefore differ. If you intend to generate code from your model, you must follow the vendor's conventions. If, conversely, you wish to generate a model from existing source code, you get a model based on those same conventions. But if you transfer that model to a different tool (which is difficult at the best of times) and generate code out of that, you won't end up with the same code.
In language-and-tool-agnostic mode, my take on which relationships to use in which situations can be found here. One point there worth repeating is that I don't use undirected associations in source-code models, precisely because they have no obvious counterpart in actual code. If in the code class A has a reference to class B, and B also has one to A, then I draw two relationships instead.
I found a definition for association in UML as below.
An "association" in UML is defined as a kind of relationship between
classes,which represents the semantic relationship between two or more classes that
involves connections (links) among their instances .
I am not clear what is semantic relationship. Can anyone explain it with example with comparing it with non semantic relationship?
Associations in plain text
An association is a semantic relationship. The UML clause means that there is a structural relationship between instances of the associated classes independently of any specific implementation. "Semantic" underlines that the relationship is between the instances themselves, and not just "accidentally" for an operation:
Use associations primarily where there are structural relationships among objects. Do not use them to show transient relationships such as parameters or local variables of procedures.- Booch, Rumbaugh & Jacobson in Unified Modeling Language User Guide, 2nd edition
More arguments
What is "semantic"?
The term "semantic" is borrowed from linguistics and refers to the meanings behind the words. Linguists and map words (e.g. "Car", "Driver") to their meaning (e.g. a real car, a real person), and analyze the relation between words with a view of this mapping:
So, applying this to UML (modelling language) if you'd have the classes Car and Driver, you CAN model the semantic relationship as an association between the two classes.
What is not semantic?
Not all relationships are of semantic nature. You can have dependencies, which can express a technical relationship:
a transient relationship during an operation: with a factory pattern for example, a DriverFactory would «create» a Driver instance. Both instances the factory and the driver are related only at the exact moment of the creation operation. But the two instances are completely independent the nanosecond after.The same applies if the implementation of an operation needs to create a local instance of another class. Both classes are not associated, since we could imagine another implementation that works without such an instance.
a structural dependency: Maybe an operation require some other classes as parameter. Since the parameters themselves are transient, there is no association. But nevertheless, teh class needs to know about the other class.
For the records, I'm grateful to this public domain contributor for the nice car and driver and to 18f for advice on inclusive communication.
The subject of Semantics is sense. If one thing has something that is connected by sense to another thing, it is the semantic relationship. That definition is terribly wide. And, applied to UML relationship, incorrect. It is incorrect for two reasons.
First, UML covers not only Class-Instance languages, such as Java or C++, but pure object languages with heredity created by Prototypes as well. And this second variant is not covered by your definition at all.
Second, in UML you can have class A connected to class B through some complex AssociationClass, that is shown by a box with arrows, not arrow only. And it still will be named an association and it IS a semantic relationship, too. But a the semantic relationship goes from A to B through two classes, it is still a semantic relationship, but it is not an association in UML.
If you are trying to be deep in subject, better read the UML documentation: "An Association classifies a set of tuples representing links between typed instances." (UML 2.5, pharagraph 11.5.1). Notice: ANY link between two instances can be shown as an association. Maybe the book you are reading is wholely not so bad, but in the very place that you have cited the author merely tries to use pretty words not understanding their meaning and not even trying to be understandable to readers and to be CORRECT.
A model says something about the things being modeled. This is its semantics. Almost all elements of UML have semantics, defined in the sections titled "semantics". One exception is the comment. Adding a comment to a model doesn't influence its meaning.
Then why does the UML say this explicitely about associations? The reason is, that an association may or may not say something about the structure. If it doesn't, it is purely semantic.
For example it could tell us, that a Car can have at most one Driver. It doesn't necessarily mean that the car has an attribute of type Driver.
If we want to model that the two associated classes own attributes typed by the other end of the association, the notation will show this by small dots on its ends. Many people are not familiar with this notation and interpret associations without a dot in the same way. However, without the dots attributes are owned by the association itself and the structure of the classes is not influenced.
By the way, a class being the type of a parameter of an operation or having a dependency also means a semantic relationship.
Sorry for this newb question, i'm new to UML.
The diagram for a system is this one:
From what I know of UML, none of the classes in this diagram can own instances of the associated class as there's no aggregate relationship with it.
Does this mean in an implementation of the system in Java, based on the diagram, an outside class has to own instances of the associated class?
Sorry if the answer is obvious. I've spent hours scratching my head over it.
First off, terminology. #Daniel is right, you don't have an association class. However, I don't think you mean Association Class:
Does this mean in an implementation of the system in Java, based on the diagram, an outside class has to own instances of the associated class?
If I understand correctly that's the nub of your question. In implementation terms, which class(es) have a member variable containing a list of references to instances of Associated Class?
Again - if I understand right - your question stems from the following logic:
In UML, "ownership" is commonly described as a quality of Aggregation (or Composition) relationships.
The relationship between Aggregated/Composite PART Class and Associated Class is a simple binary association - not Aggregate/Composite.
Therefore the "ownership" property doesn't apply
Therefore who owns the list of references to Associated Class instances?
If that's right then the issue is with the specific meaning of "ownership". Whilst not tightly defined in UML, "ownership" typically means responsibility for managing full lifecycle.
I think you're interpreting it more generally: that if an association isn't aggregate, then the participating classes can't hold references to each other.
That's not the case. It's perfectly reasonable for Aggregated/Composite PART Class to hold a reference (or list of references) to instances of Associated Class. The inverse is equally valid. In some cases both are valid (with the attendant need to maintain consistency).
So in summary: is it necessary for an outside class to own the instances of Associated Class? No. It's perfectly valid for either or both ends of a binary association to manage instances of the relationship.
hth and apologies if I misunderstood your question.
PS: a final observation: be very careful about what you mean when using Aggregation. It's notoriously imprecise in the UML spec. Composition has a more rigorous definition, and you can cover 99% plus of all modelling scenarios using Composition and plain Binary Associations. About the only place Aggregation has a well-defined meaning not completely covered by the other two is denoting when recursive relationships must be acyclic.
UML does not specify the full behaviour of a system. So what do you mean, when you say an object owns another object? Also instances AssociatedClass could be root objects that are not owned by any other object.
The diagram you provided doesn't really contain an association class. The class you named 'associated class' is just a normal class. It also isn't owned by anything (that we see in the diagram).
If what you had in mind was association class, then take a look at example diagram with association class:
In this example, the MilleageCredit is an association class. So for each distinct combination of Fligh-FrequentFlyer there is one MilleageCredit.
As for ownership, since the Association class represents a relation between 2 associated objects, it gets deleted when
the association is cleared
either or both of associated objects are deleted
So if you delete either the Flight or FrequentFlyer the MilleageCredit will be gone too.
Also if you unlink Flight from FrequentFlyer again the MilleageCredit will be delete.
There's plenty of good UML docs online, for example UML basics: The class diagram
Hope this helps, otherwise please provide more info in the question.