Can I improve my design on these 2 diagrams below? If so, how?
I am confused by the use of association classes in my diagrams. Should I use them?
Figure 1
Figure 2
For association classes, they make sense only if they represent associations with some behaviour and state. Look at Article'sSubject. It has nothing more than source, target and identity. You don't need a class for such a association, just use plain association, which has all those properties. There are more such unnecessary association classes in your diagrams. Another important thing when using association classes is that every instance of that association class should have unique source and target pair. For example Comment is not identifiable just by Article and User - one user may have man ycomments on one article and that is not allowed.
An association class is used to capture certain characteristics of an association between two classes. These characteristics do not belong to the classes being associated but instead belong to the relationship between the classes.
Related
I'm taking the Stanford edx course (Databases: Modeling and theory) and the lecturer mentioned this piece of information about association classes and what they imply in a diagram (in reference to an example of two classes "student" and "college" associated by a "applies to" association with the association class "appInfo" containing college application info):
Now what we're saying is that association is going to have affiliated with it a date and a decision. What we cannot describe in UML is the possibility of having more than one relationship or association between the same student and the same college.
So when we have an association, that assumes at most one relationship between two objects. So, for example, if we wanted to add the possibility that students could apply to the same college multiple times so maybe, you know, they wanted to apply for different majors, that would actually have to be captured quite differently. We'd have to add a separate class for the application information with separate relationships to the students and colleges.
but I didn't really get what she meant here, does having an association class create an automatic 1-1 coupling between two classes? or is it prohibited for two classes to have more than one relationship? or what exactly is being said here because it's a bit vague and I'm not experienced in UML data modeling.
The statement is either wrong or it’s taken out of a specific context that was not mentioned here. The reasons are:
there is no implicit one-to-one in an association; the multiplicities at both end of an association specifies if it’s a one to one, a one to many, a many to many association or anything in between.
the same applies to an association class, which is both: an association and a class at the same time.
in a many to many association, there can very well be several times a link between the same objects. In fact, in a one-to-many or many-to-many association, you need to add an explicit constraint if you want to avoid this.
More information:
in this other answer, there are some more explanation about the semantic of association classes
an here a question related to uniqueness. as you will see, it is not that obvious to avoid multiple occurrences
In a UML diagram where one class is comprised by another class, is there an implicit association table, or does it need to be shown?
For example, if I have Chapters that are composition of Paragraphs, is this alone enough:
Or does the association class to be explicitly shown like so:
I've never seen it done like that latter example, so I'm assuming it's implied. Or maybe I haven't normalized the data properly (considering chapter both appears in the Chapter class and the Paragraph class).
Simply, there is no implication. If you need an association class, you need to define it. However, UML is not about diagraming, it's about modeling. You can omit your association class in a diagram if you want to. The association class will still exist in your model, though.
No, it is not implied.
The reason why you haven't seen this is that in most cases it simply doesn't make sense. In the association class the class part additionally describes the properties of the association. In your example you create an artificial object that actually brings little or nothing. This kind of approach can be useful for many-to-many relationships which are impossible for composition (each part can have at most one whole). Even if you wanted to show Foreign Key it would simply be on one of the classes. But that's implied by the association itself. According to UML specification an inline attribute is equivalent to an association.
Moreover on UML you can depict many to many relationship simply but applying appropriate multiplicities on association ends. You may want to show the class depicting that only when modelling on the code level.
No, it is not implied.
UML is not about tables, but about classes. The author of the class diagram should tell the audience how a class should be interpreted. Some UML diagrams model the real world, others model a piece of application functionality and yet others depict a physical implementation.
Apparently, reading your question, you are modeling a relational database, where a class is a physical table. In that case, I would expect that every table is explicitly modeled as a UML class.
The UML standard does not demand this.
By the way, the notation (PK) and (FK) is not in accordance with the UML standard.
On Wikipedia, I'm reading that an association relationship is an instance level relationship so we are talking about the relationship between the objects of two classes.
When we actually draw a class diagram, why do we use association on the class elements or blocks rather than objects? And there are also class level relationships for which we again use class elements. Since we don't have any way to show if we are talking about objects or classes I find this confusing. For example: I've heard people saying "Associate these two classes" Doesn't that sound wrong?
Links are to Associations as Objects are to Classes.
A Class is an abstraction that describes many specific objects. Similarly, an Association is an abstraction that describes many links between objects.
So your statement
an association relationship is an instance level relationship
isn't strictly correct because it mixes the abstraction (Association Relationship) with the instances it represents.
hth.
In fact, when you associate two or more classes it is done thanks to two or more UML Properties.
These latter are the "ends" of your associations and are "instance" i.e. they are typed by classe.
So an association is created between two classes on a class diagram but between each classes and the association you have a UML property.
Hoping it sounds clear ...
When you are making a class diagram you are defining types. Suppose you have a class User and a class Account, you use an association between User and Account to say: User instances can have link(s) with Account instances at runtime.
So, you use classes and associations at type level (class diagram) to define what can be possible at runtime (instance level).
The object is actually the Class that has been created virtualy. So a class is the "static" version of an Object. So, when we speak of UML, we speak about classes and not object.
But correct me if I'm wrong!
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.
I have read several tutorials on what a UML model should contain and what not. As a developer I always think in terms of a relational data model where you could never have a many to many relationship between tables. Now with a UML class model, I've read that if they don't provide added value, you could just skip the linktables.
However I've also read a tutorial where examples where given using data inside tables and was strongly suggesting to picture each class as a simple table while modeling your class model.
I am confused, what is it now?!
The "relational link table" is an implementation technique for a Many-to-Many relationship.
The relationship exists irrespective of how it's implemented.
In an object model, you have many choices for how to implement many-to-many, which may (or may not) involve an additional persistent table. It could be done lots of different ways.
The point of UML is to be able to describe the essential features of what the model really is.
You can also describe the implementation. They're separate diagrams with separate purposes. You can easily show the relational implementation with the link table. You can also show the essential model without the link table.
Here's the essential relationship
Here's the implementation of the relationship
Both are valid UML. The real question is "what do you need to show other people?" Essential truth or one particular implementation?
Model it as an M:N relationship. Same as in a relationship model there will be an associate class (or link class) of some kind in code. No need to put that on the diagram unless it has attributes on top of the join attributes (much like you would generally omit a join entity from an ERD unless it had attributes that weren't foreign keys in the related entities). The link class is typically drawn as a class connected to the relationship by a dashed line.
The Enrolment join entity is a good example of this in UML 2 Class Diagrams.