Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
You might know that Association relationship is a structural relationship which one of the classes knows about the information in another class But if you can please tell an example that I can understand it and I need to know about Realization relationship with an example ,too .
I will appreciate you if you can tell some examples.
In the UML Specification by OMG defines Realization as below:
Realization is a specialized abstraction relationship between two sets
of model elements, one representing a specification (the supplier) and
the other represents an implementation of the latter (the client).
Realization can be used to model stepwise refinement, optimizations,
transformations, templates, model synthesis, framework composition,
etc.
Also as specialized classes, there are ComponentRealization, InterfaceRealization, Substitution and InterfaceRealization is the most useful one for designing the programs.
An InterfaceRealization is a specialized Realization relationship
between a Classifier and an Interface. This relationship signifies
that the realizing classifier conforms to the contract specified by
the Interface.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Are these diagrams correct? I am talking just about UML specifications. The first one is a class diagram of a code implementation. The second one is an activity diagram showing how to repair some 3D models.
The diagrams look good, although there are a few minor errors:
GameObject is used as a type, but not defined. You will have to define it as a class, an interface or a data type.
List<...> is not correct. In UML, use the multiplicity *, as follows: - NPCs : GameObject[*]
In the activity diagram, the labels along flows leaving a decision should be between square brackets, e.g. [yes] and [no].
There is a merge symbol missing before search for holes. If an action has two incoming flows, this means that the action is executed after all incoming flows have been followed, but in your case, you want the action to be executed after one of the three flows has been followed.
One final remark: you didn't specify any multiplicities for the association between Character_Controller and Teleporter. This is okay, but it means that the multiplicities are undefined, i.e. it is not specified to how many instances of Teleporter a Character_Controller is associated and it is not specified to how many instances of Character_Controller a Teleporter is associated. Since you did specify multiplicities for the aggregations, I would advise to specify multiplicities here as well.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
If we imagine we are given with a domain diagram and we also have a use case.
I am struggling to understand, what exactly can we derive?
Ex domain model, found on google.
I want to get to the interaction diagrams as a result.
I think the path is, system sequence diagrams -> operation contracts -> interaction diagrams
I just dont get the logic of how to derive all this from a domain diagram because on communication diagrams we can have instance creations that comes out from no where.
Can anyone explain how to derive all this from a domain diagram (if there are steps)?
This domain model represents the static structure of your domain. It does not give any information about its dynamics (how it behaves/changes over time). Sequence diagrams and interaction diagrams model the dynamics. They cannot be derived from the domain model.
In your question, you wrote: "We also have a use case". A use case gives information about the dynamics, so maybe you can derive the sequence/interaction diagrams from the use case.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm unsure on how this relationship would work in a use case. I was hoping somebody would shed some light on this for me by explaining the relationship and the behaviour accessible by each?
This relationship is not allowed in UML 2.0.
UML 2 does not permit associations between Actors. (1)(2) The use of generalization/specialization relationship between actors is useful in modeling overlapping behaviours between actors and does not violate this constraint since a generalization relation is not a type of association.(3)
(Wikipedia)
Although Applicant is a valid concept to the system, (s)he is not a system user; therefore, it should not be an actor in the use case diagram. Even for regular use case descriptions this relationship does not matter. What matters is the user and system interactions. However, you are free to explain this relationship in a user story.
Although this is legal UML it does not have a well defined semantic. It says: Applicant is associated with Artist Manager but does not tell what kind of relation that is.
Just think by yourself: what does it tell? If you can't give a meaningful answer then it's probably nonsense.
Judging from the UC I guess that Applicant is a secondary actor. You should relate it to the UC like Artist Manager. In the past I used an undirected association for the secondary actor. Alternatively you may stereotype it with <<use>> or the like. Just be consistent with the notation.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a correct way to refer to the two classes in this relationship? I was thinking of something similar to A being the parent and B being the child, but this sounds wrong for composition.
A UML composition is intended to capture a special case of a part-whole relationship. Since it's called "composition", it seems natural to call the two classes involved component class and composite class.
There is no accepted standard for the names of these classes.
The UML standard text uses terms Container - Part. But they are not parts of the standard itself, they are merely terms used for explanation.
The most often and, IMHO, convenient terms are: A is container class, B is item class.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
As I know we have three base model in software modeling [Requirement, Analysis, Design], but I don't know what kind of diagrams should be in the analysis model. When someone asks me to give him Analysis model of the system, What should I give him?
An analysis model provides the information needed for the design. This includes:
class roles (Text)
use case description in terms of classes and operations
completed analysis model classes (diagram)
sub-system diagrams (package diagram)
You could basically see this as a refinement phase for the use cases aswell as containing the first initial class diagram.
As for how you would make such a model, you would start of by making a class diagram (draft). Once you have made this diagram you would have to re-examine your use cases and objects. Based on improvements you made you refine the class diagram.
This is followed by executing a check which results in more refinements of the class diagram. Finally you have to group the classes you found (decided) in packages (package diagram).
For further reading I would like to refer to this article.
In the UML analysis model, you should create a class diagram which contains the view, controller and model classes, only the view classes contains methods but all of them contains attributes, here is an example http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/~pearce/modules/projects/ooa/sunUML/am.htm