When creating relationships in an Object Class Diagram for an Object Relational Database, should the diamonds on the ends of the relationship links be filled in or not.
Here is an image of my Class diagram:
http://canning.co.nz/Weltec/Class_Diagram.png
It's a choice between Composition and Aggregation, which Wikipedia explains quite well.
In practice though, I think a valid answer is to just not worry about the difference, unless it's a school assignment. I've found that trying to make very detailed UML diagrams isn't terribly useful in practice.
Composition relationship has a coloured diamond shape structure ending at a class if it belongs to a 'is a' relationship (i.e- the entity cannot exist without the parent class) whereas the aggregation has an empty diamond shape ending at a class if it belongs to a 'has a' relationship (i.e- the entity can exist without the existence of the parent class.
A full diamond denotes Composition, or a 'owns' relationship. You use it when the referenced entity can't exist without the class representing it. An example would be order to order item. The order item just doesn't make sense without the order.
An empty diamond denotes Aggregation, or a 'has' relationship. A quick glance at your diagram makes me think this is the correct diagram element to use in your case.
But I agree with #mpartel: If there aren't any specific requirements to distinguish between the two just ignore the diamonds.
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 always thought that the UML aggregate is defined as a black (filled) diamond at the beginning of a path and no arrow head that the end:
|--------| |--------|
| :MyA |<>------| :MyB |
|--------| |--------|
Today I came across a notation like <>-----> (with an explicit arrow head on the right end). So I looked it up in the UML 2.4 specification and actually found references for both versions.
My favourite reference: "UML and Patterns" by Craig Larman only mentions the first version without the arrow. In the UML specification I found a notice about navigable ends, but I am not sure if this is related and if whats the difference?
Could someone explain this more thoroughly and give an example for the use of each version?
Any association end can be designated to be "navigable" with the help of a navigability arrow. However, UML's notion of "navigability" does not have a precise meaning and people confused it with the concept of an association end being owned by the class at the other end. This concept of association end ownership by a class means that the association end corresponds to a reference property of that class. This issue has only been clarified in last year's new UML version 2.5, which has introduced a new visual notation for association end ownership, a "dot" as in . This is most likely the intended meaning of what you came across, namely , and what it really means is the following reference property:
For more explanation see this tutorial.
Additional answer to the comment: If your class model specifies the ownership of all association ends, and your class diagram displays them, and there is no ownership dot (nor a navigability arrow), as in , then, according to UML 2.5, the association end is "owned" by the association itself. Since we do neither have an ownership dot at the MyA end, both ends are "owned" by the composite association. In terms of the code to write/generate, this would mean that the composite association is not implemented by means of reference properties in either MyA or MyB, but has to be implemented with the help of a separate class, say "MyA-has-MyB", which has two reference properties for referencing both the aggregate and the component of any composition link, as in the following class rectangle:
One arrow means the association is navigable this way. No arrows means the association is navigable BOTH ways. Two arrows are omitted.
It could be a problem, because two ends with undefined navigability look out the same way, but it is the standard.
You can read more thoroughly about associations/navigability/aggregations in this my answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/21478862/715269
Direction implies a client/server or master/slave relationship. In the case of aggregation, the usual situation is the programmer uses the aggregate to find the sub-components for that object (e.g., use the car to find the car parts). Directionality towards the part class makes this relationship explicit, though in most cases it is redundant.
An association has two ends. An association’s end is modeled by means of a UML Property which can be owned by the classifier involved at the related end of the association, in that case the association is said to be navigable as the source classifier can directly refer to the target instance (the instance at the other end of the association) by means of that property. Otherwise the property representing the association end may be owned by the association instance itself
see http://lowcoupling.com/post/47802411601/uml-diagrams-and-models-with-papyrus
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.
This my UML class diagram (URL)
In above diagram, ChildParent (or Child1, Child2, and Child3) can only be initialized in MainObject->create_new_object() and store it in class Library through ObjectData->lib->add_object(key, newObject).
So, how to define UML class relationship between ChildParent, Library, and MainObject?
Thank you
Relationships between classes are structural, not behavioral. The MainObject is creating it, but it is not controlling its lifespan nor does it own it in any way. After creating is it handed over to the ObjectData, transported to the Library and stored there. There is a behavioral relationship between the MainObject and the ChildParent object, but there is not a structural relationship between the two of them. I should not depict any relationship between them.
The Library is storing it. This is a typical whole part relationship and structural. What is a library without books? Therefor would I make use of the aggregation type of relation. It is not the composition, because the Library does not control the lifespan of any ChildParent or Child object nor does it imply that the ChildObject will be destroyed when the Library object is destroyed. That might happen, but given the presented data is that not clear to me.
EDIT as a reply to a comment:
Class diagrams show the structural relationships between classes, not their usage. When a class implements an interface, then will you see that relationship in the diagram. In the code (the behaviour) might you not see this relationship, because the implementation is hidden in a factory method or provided by a IoC container or it might even be a relationship that is never used.
What is the relationship between a class (the caller) that is picking a class (the callee) from a library and between the caller and the library?
It is obvious that the caller and the library have a behavioral relationship. If the module changes, can the caller get his callee from some other class. Therefor will the library and the caller have no relationship in the class diagram.
There is a structural relationship between the caller and the callee. The caller needs the callee. Your comment does not specify the exact relationship between them, but there is a relationship. The weakest form is the dependency relationship. An example in connection with a library is that a person is lending a book from a library. When he starts to read the book, is the callee used. It does not belong intrinsically to the person as a whole, but it does belong to a certain method of the person class.
There are a lot of ways to implement a library. It can be for instance a wardrobe. What is the relationship between a person in the military and his uniforms? He needs to wear some uniforms in certain situations, yet in other situations are those uniforms forbidden to wear. Wearing an uniform is a part of the class military. You can not be in the military without wearing an uniform in the time of duty. The moment you are out of the military are you not allowed to wear the uniform anymore. Hence has a military a compositional relationship with that uniform from his wardrobe.
There are more types of relationships possible between the caller and the callee. You can not say it at forehand. You must answer it the same way as any other relationship. The first question is very clear: is this a structural relationship or not? Keywords like 'is a' and 'has a' depict a structural relationship. Keywords like 'uses', 'asks', 'picks from' show a behavioral relationship. Have you concluded that it is a structural relationship, then should you find out what the dependency between the two classes is.
For example, consider the following: There is a class "Text Group" which is a generalization of class "Text Object." Text Groups can contain one or more Text Objects or one or more Text Groups. How would I represent this in UML? Any relevant links?
Thanks!
Think you want the Composite Pattern.
hth.
I think that u just composite it like it was any other class.
Generalisation shows the relation in inheritance tree between the parent and child classes. If you want to show containment, use composition or aggreagation relationship. As mentioned above, Composite design pattern is a perfect fit for your problem. You use compostion with an interface, which you implement with both the node and leaf classes in your composition hierarchy.
Classes are not restricted to a single relationship, and can be self referencing. You can draw both a generalisation and a composition relationship.
However I would question your specification of "one or more" multiplicity in a self referencing class since that will require either a circular or infinitely recursive reference. "zero or more" would probably be more appropriate. I would also question the semantics of a single object being a type of group, sounds counter-intuitive perhaps.