Let's say I have class A with associations to classes X, Y, and Z, respectively. I need to indicate that only one of these associations may be instantiated for any given instance of class A (so, an xor constraint). I know how to do this if the constraint is just across two associations. Obviously I can just make three seperate xor constraints (X-Y, X-Z, Y-Z) but I'm wondering if there is a better/cleaner/proper way to do it?
edit: The multiplicity constraints on the respective associations are not the same. Using an abstract class or interface will not work. Furthermore, a note is insufficient. I need to use some sort of formalized structure, preferably something standardized (e.g. by OMG) to express this because I am programmatically processing the model elements (i.e. it isn't just a picture). I understand how the underlying model for UML provides for this facility. It also specifies (though slightly vaguely) how it should be notated. I guess my main issue is, in fact, with finding a tool that allows me to make that notation. I don't think MagicDraw does so. I should have stated these things earlier.
FWIW, I'm using MagicDraw. It would be a nice bonus if the I could do this in a way that MagicDraw actually understood. I can live with it if that isn't possible.
The xor constraint is just a stylized and rather under-specified constraint for the 2-way case.
You can define an explicit constraint (in Complete OCL) as:
context A
inv OnlyAorBorC: A->size() + B->Size() + C->size() <= 1
MagicDraw may allow you to specify a similar contextual Constraint on A.
If "X", "Y" and/or "Z" can be somehow generalized (I mean, if you not doing this puraly for a conditional flow control), you can make an interface (or and abstract class) "I" for example, and make "X", "Y" and "Z" implement this interface. Then, you put an association with multiplicity 1 between A and the interface I.
See the diagram below:
Edit: The example above doesn't work in the case of A having different cardinalities between X, Y and Z. For this case, the only way that I can see is use an UML Constraint to restrict those relationships. You can define a Constraint in UML putting some OCL expression between curly braces. E. g.
Here, account owner is either Person or Corporation and this {xor} is predefined UML constraint.
I'm not sure about the details of your cardinalities requirements but, a combination between this {xor} and the interface example that I gave might be enough. At least it gives you a little bit more of options, like:
If you need to know more about the UML constraints subject, I got this example from uml-diagrams.org: http://www.uml-diagrams.org/constraint.html
Related
Trying to implement a class diagram and I am not sure how should it done properly. Here is the problem:
Miners can extract gold, silver and coal (the mines are homogeneous, always contains one type). In addition, there are some dangerous mines: e.g some might collapse or be radioactive.
How can I represent this on a class diagram? First, I thought it can be done with one Mines class. From that with generalization I candefine the collapsible and radioactive mines. But I can't decide how to deal with the different material types. Should that be classes too or attributes in the Mines class?
The simpler the better. Without specific behavior in the statement depending on the extracted substance it is enough to have only one class Mine, and the the list of possible substances being known an enumeration is enough. Because a mine produces only one substance the multiplicity is 1.
The statement doesn't say if the mine can both be radioactive and collapse or not.
Supposing a mine can both be radioactive and can collapse, you can use an attribute for each danger:
It is also possible to use a enumeration for the danger and the multiplicity 0..2 but it is also necessary to have a constraint saying each danger appears at most one time, so this is not a simple way.
Else if even less probable a mine can have at most one danger you can again use a enumeration with the multiplicity 1:
or with the multiplicity 0..1:
The best way to model this is by defining the material in the mine as an enumeration. An enumeration is a data type, which you can use to define an attribute, as follows:
The dependency arrow from Mine to Material is redundant, because it is already implied by the fact that it is used as an attribute type, but in a more complex class diagram, I find it helpful to easily see which enumerations are used by which classes.
I did not use generalization for the various types of mines, because the subclasses would not have special features, so I go for the most simple solution.
I did not use generalization for the dangers, because a mine may be both collapsing and radioactive.
A few days ago a friend pointed out to me that I had a wrong idea of composition in UML. She was completely right, so I decided to find out what more I could have been wrong about. Right now, there is one more thing that I have doubts about: I have a circular dependency in my codebase that I would like to present in UML form. But how.
In my case the following is true:
Both A and B have a list of C
C has a reference to both A and B to get information from.
C cannot exist if either A or B stops to exist
Both A and B remain to exist after C is deleted from A and/or B
To model this, I've come up with the following UML (I've ommited multiplicities for now, to not crowd the diagram.)
My question is, is this the right way to model such relations?
Problems
Some facts to keep in mind:
Default multiplicity makes your model invalid. A class may only be composed in one other class. When you don't specify multiplicity, you get [1..1]. That default is sad, but true.
The UML spec doesn't define what open-diamond aggregation means.
Your model has many duplicate properties. There is no need for any of the properties in the attribute compartments, as there are already unnamed properties at the ends of every association.
Corrections
Here is a reworking of your model to make it more correct:
Notice the following:
The exclusive-or constraint between the associations means only one of them can exist at a time.
Unfortunately, the multiplicities allow an instance of C to exist without being composed by A or B. (See the reworked model below.)
The property names at the ends of all associations explicitly name what were unnamed in your model. (I also attempted to indicate purpose in the property names.)
The navigability arrows prevent multiple unwanted properties without resorting to duplicative attributes.
Suggested Design
If I correctly understand what your model means, here is how I would probably reverse the implementation into design:
Notice the following:
Class D is abstract (the class name is in italics), meaning it can have no direct instances.
The generalization set says:
An instance cannot be multiply classified by A and B. (I.e., A and B are {disjoint}.)
An instance of D must be an instance of one of the subclasses. (I.e., A and B are {complete}, which is known as a covering axiom.)
The subclasses inherit the ownedC property from class D.
The composing class can now have a multiplicity of [1..1], which no longer allows an instance of C to exist without being composed by an A or a B.
Leave away the open diamonds and make them normal associations. These are no shared aggregations but simple associations. The composite aggregations are ok.
In general there is not much added value in showing aggregations at all. The semantic added value is very low. In the past this was a good hint to help the garbage collection dealing with unneeded objects. But nowadays almost all target languages have built-in efficient garbage collectors. Only in cases where you want an explicit deletion of the aggregated objects you should use the composite aggregation.
Let's say I have class Foo that has an association to some thing(s) that fulfill(s) a role. This role could be fulfilled by either (strictly) one Bar xor any number of Baz. Similarly, the role might be fulfilled by either any number or Bar xor any number of Baz (but a mixed collection is intolerable). Are there reasonable ways to represent these in a class diagram using only associations, classes, and interfaces? I would (really) like to avoid using OCL or constraint elements.
(The reason I would like to avoid these is because we are generating code from our UML. We have already implemented generation that handles associations, classes, and interfaces. Dealing with OCL would be quite the task. Constraint elements wouldn't be so bad but still quite a lot of work.)
I would start with the picture below and create several different versions before deciding which one generates best code (junior-40).
The yellow blocks represent necessary "glue code" needed to straighten your example against your other requirements
Consider creating an abstract class Thing and derive Bar and Baz from it. It abstract the whole role, can contain some own atts and methods if needed and is quite flexible and extendible.
Now Account has an association only with AccountOwner (role "role", as Jim L. has explained in his comment, a role name must be unique in this context).
Note that this does not eliminate the need of some additional restrictions. For example, all linked "roles" should be of the same type. Sometimes is not easy (or even possible) to remove all restrictions. Otherwise we would make complete systems out of class diagram. I agree though, that as much information as possible should be contained in classes, their taxonomies and features (atts, assocs and methods).
EXAMPLE:
EXAMPLE 2 (after comments):
This version overcomes the need to use OCL ant yet keeps the simplicity and flexibility:
Multiplicities are now also derived and refined for each concrete "role". No OCL needed. :)
You add a constraint on the class in OCL:
(self.role->exists(r|r.oclIsType(Bar)) and self.role->notexists(r|r.oclIsType(Baz)) ) or
(self.role->exists(r|r.oclIsType(Baz)) and self.role->notexists(r|r.oclIsType(Bar)))
You can try this out with MDriven Designer.
The reason for introducing OCL (object constraint language) in the UML specification was just this; ability to add constraint not possible or practical to convey with simple cardinality and type information
Could this image help you ? It is extracted from the norm.
Are you thinking of something like the following:
(source: uml-diagrams.org)
Where Account is your Foo, Person is your Bar, and Corporation is your Baz.
You can then specify multiplicity on each of the two associations: [1] for Bar (Person) and [1..*] for Baz (Corporation).
I have one object, call it type A which has four data members of another object type, call it B. How do I show this in a UML class diagram so that its clear there are four B objects type in every A object?
Is the only solution to put "4" next to the arrow head pointing to class B?
It depends on what you want to achive, in sense of how you need to distinguish between those objects in context of their association/link, that is - what kind of role they play:
if there are all equal, no special differences in their role in context of A, them a multiplicity 4..4 will do the job, naming the association end properly (for example my_Bs)
If these object play different role in connection with A, then you can use separate associations with lower multiplicities each one, 2, 3 or even 4 pieces (for example, if B is a Wheel and A is Car, then you can put 2 associations with multiplicities 2..2 each, and call then "front" and "rear", or even 4 associations "front_left", "front_right"...)
Here is how the both cases look like. On the second one I showd different possible options (with max. 5 elements of B), just to give you an idea.
It's probably clear by now, but the fundamental concept here is the role of the association end.
Aleks answer is the best. However you can also represent the multiplicity in one box like this :
You cal also use composite structure diagram. See example below:
From my point of view, myBs defined as an attribute of type B on class A has a different meaning of myBs defined as a association's role between A and B (which is also different as defining it as a composition/aggregation).
If it is an attribute, then it's not a role. In that case, there is only a simple dependency relation between A and B, which must appear in the diagram.
I think that problem comes from unconsciously think from a "Relationnal Data (BMS)" and/or a "Object Oriented Programming" point of view, but UML is not intended for that.
:)
I was running a tutorial today, and a we were designing a Class diagram to model a road system. One of the constraints of the system is that any one segment of road has a maximum capacity; once reached, no new vehicles can enter the segment.
When drawing the class diagram, can I use capacity as one of the multiplicities? This way, instead of having 0..* vehicles on a road segment, I can have 0..capacity vehicles.
I had a look at ISO 1905-1 for inspiration, and I thought that what I want is similar to what they've called a 'multiplicity element'. In the standard, it states:
If the Multiplicity is associated with an element whose notation is a text string (such as an attribute, etc.), the multiplicity string will be placed within square brackets ([]) as part of that text string. Figure 9.33 shows two multiplicity strings as part of attribute specifications within a class symbol. -- section 9.12
However, in the examples it gives, they don't seem to employ this feature in the way I expected - they annotate association links rather than replace the multiplicities.
I would rather get a definitive answer for the students in question, rather than make a guess based on the standard, so I ask here: has anyone else faced this issue? How did you overcome it?
According to the UML specification you can use a ValueSpecification for lower and upper bounds of a multiplicity element. And a ValueSpecification can be an expression. So in theory it must be possible although the correct expression will be more complex. Indeed it mixes design and instance level.
In such a case it is more usual to use a constraint like this:
UML multiplicity constraint http://app.genmymodel.com/engine/xaelis/roads.jpg