Say I had three types of vehicle, which are all related by some similar attributes.
What is the best way to show these relationships?
In traditional entity-relationship diagrams such a relation between attributes is not shown. This notation is exclusively reserved for foreign keys to primary keys relationships. For example if you would have a Manufacturer entity with a (unique) Id attribute, you could then relate a new attribute Car manufacturer id to it to show to what entity it refers.
In an enhanced ERD, you could use the IsA relationship and move the common attributes to a separate entity called Vehicle. The IsA relationship would then mean that the same attributes are inherited by the inheriting entities. But your example is not straight forward, since a Boat has no Number of wheels. So you'd need to further add a Rolling vehicle entity, making the diagram very complex.
Very pragmatically, you could:
Use the same attribute name for the same kind of information.
Use a data dictionary describing each unique attribute in a generic way applicable to all teh entities that use it.
Or graphically use some dotted connector between common attributes (instead of the plain lines which are confusing)
Or, if the similar entities are close on the diagram, draw colored horizontal boxes surrounding groups of identical attributes.
Related
I have designed an er-diagram and have an entity without any attributes. I need this entity (Item) to create a many-to-many relationshop but I guess there is a way to make this more efficient and getting rid of the entity without attributes.
ER DIAGRAM:
Thanks
As I can see from your diagram your Item isn't just entity without attributes. It's a base type for your BAGEL and DRINK (you can think of this relationship as inheritance in OOP languages).
There are some techniques to work with inheritance in database world. So this Item is not a problem for ER-diagram.
ITEM should have at least one attribute - an identifier. A supertype's primary key can be reused as a foreign primary key in its subtypes.
Can composition be bidirectional in a way that both classes are aware of each other?
And if not, what is the default direction of composition?
You should distinguish navigability and aggregation. Arrow and diamond.
Arrow A->B means only that B is reachable from A in some simple way. If A contains a composition of B, it means that
the composite object has responsibility for the existence and storage
of the composed objects (parts).
(citation from OMG Unified Modeling Language TM (OMG UML) - p.109)
So, can composition have bi-directional navigability?
Yes. It is quite normal.
If, for example, you have decided to destroy B in some of its functions, you MUST reach A and destroy it from there. So, composition has bi-directional navigability often enough. Notice, that bi-directional navigability, according to both current and coming UML standards, is shown as line without arrows on both sides. Both-sided arrow is deprecated. THAT is the reason you won't see it often.
Can the composition itself be bi-directional? Can we see black diamonds on both sides of an association?
No, of course this sort of association cannot be mutual, for it is impossible for B to be created in A only and, simultaneously, for A to be created in B only.
What is interesting, the shared aggregation (empty diamond) cannot be mutual, too, but here the limitation is not inherent, it is simply forbidden by UML standard.
Yes, Composition does not add constraints with regards to the navigability of the association.
More info on the difference between Accociation, Composition and Aggregations can be found here: UML Composition vs Aggregation vs Association
From https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/uml/class-diagram:
Bidirectional associations are the default associations between two classes and are represented by a straight line between two classes. Both classes are aware of each other and of their relationship with each other. In the example above, the Car class and RoadTrip class are interrelated. At one end of the line the Car takes on the association of "assignedCar" with the multiplicity value of 0..1 which means that when the instance of RoadTrip exists, it can either have one instance of Car associated with it or no Cars associated with it. In this case, a separate Caravan class with a multiplicity value of 0..* is needed to demonstrate that a RoadTrip could have multiple instances of Cars associated with it. Since one Car instance could have multiple "getRoadTrip" associations-- in other words, one car could go on multiple road trips--the multiplicity value is set to 0..*
In the past I had the same opinion as Gangnus with
So, can composition have bi-directional navigability?
But following some recent discussion I had a more detailed look into the UML specs. And simply, that statement is not true (only partially). Let's look into the UML 2.5 specs. On p. 110 it is stated
Sometimes a Property is used to model circumstances in which one instance is used to group together a set of instances; this is called aggregation. To represent such circumstances, a Property has an aggregation property, of type AggregationKind; the instance representing the whole group is classified by the owner of the Property, and the instances representing the grouped individuals are classified by the type of the Property. AggregationKind is an enumeration with the following literal values:
[omitting shared aggregation]
composite: Indicates that the Property is aggregated compositely, i.e., the composite object has responsibility for the existence and storage of the composed objects (see the definition of parts in 11.2.3).
Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation that requires a part object be included in at most one composite object at a time. If a composite object is deleted, all of its part instances that are objects are deleted with it.
Note my emphasis on the object/instance in the above text. So UML just talks of responsibility. If A composes B it will be responsible to delete B when it is destroyed itself. Vice versa B would be responsible for A's destruction. So, if you have references in both directions (i.e. diamonds on both sides) then you will be reponsible to delete the object on the other side. This of course works only if just one of both holds a reference to the other. If both would have a reference, it would not be possible to have a directed responsibility (because it's circular).
I still think that having composite aggregation on both sides is not really a good idea. But according to the specification it is possible.
I am reviewing my knowledge in object-oriented programming. Under the relationship between classes topic, I have encountered some relationships which are a bit ambiguous to me.
I know dependency "uses-a" and inheritance "is-a" but I'm a bit unfamiliar with Aggregation, Composition, Association and Direct Association; also, which of them is "has-a" relationship. Some use Aggregation interchangeably with Association.
What is Direct Association? Also, what is Composition? In UML diagrams, the arrows that represents them are different. I would be really thankful if you could clear these things out for me.
Please note that there are different interpretations of the "association" definitions. My views below are heavily based on what you would read in Oracle Certification books and study guides.
Temporary association
A usage inside a method, its signature or as a return value. It's not really a reference to a specific object.
Example: I park my Car in a Garage.
Composition association
A so-called "STRONG relationship": The instantiation of the linked object is often hard
coded inside the constructor of the object. It cannot be set from
outside the object. (Composition cannot be a many-to-many
relationship.)
Example: A House is composed of Stones.
Direct association
This is a "WEAK relationships". The objects can live independent and there are usually setters or other ways to inject the dependent objects.
Example: A Car can have Passengers.
Aggregation association
Very similar to a Direct association. It's also a "WEAK relationship" with independent objects. However here the associated objects are a crucial part of the containing object.
Example: A Car should have Tires.
Note: Both Direct associations and Aggregation associations are often generalized as "Associations". The difference is rather subtle.
The whole point of OOP is that your code replicates real world objects, making your code readable and maintainable.
1. Association
Association is: Class A uses Class B.
Example:
Employee uses Bus/train Services for transportation.
Computer uses keyboard as input device
And in In UML diagram Association is denoted by a normal arrow head.
2. Aggregation
Class A contains Class B, or Class A has an instance of Class B.
An aggregation is used when life of object is independent of container object. But still container object owns the aggregated object.
So if we delete class A that doesn't mean that class B will also be deleted. E.g. none, or many, teachers can belong to one or many departments.
The relationship between Teachers and Departments is aggregation.
3. Composition
Class A owns Class B.
E.g. Body consists of Arm, Head, Legs. BankAccount consists of Balance and TransactionHistory.
So if class A gets deleted then also class B will get deleted.
Direct association has nothing in common with the other three. It does not belong to UML at all, it is the IBM requirements modelling term.
As for others,
Association A->B is a child of Dependency. Association means, that A (or its instance) has some easy way to get to instance of B. For example, a.x.y.b. Or by function, or by some local variable. Or by a direct reference or pointer, or something else (there are many languages in the world). As you see, there is no strict border between dependency and association.
One of attributes of Association is Aggregation, it can have values: None, shared (often incorrectly called aggregation), and composition.
If A (or instance) has some (or one) instances of B so, that destroying of association means the destroying of B instances, it is the composition.
If you or a tool author had decided, that some has-a relationship, that is weaker that composition, needs to be specially shown, you can use shared aggregation. Usually it is some collections of references to B in A.
There are some more interesting attributes of associations. Look here if you are interested.
An association between object types classifies relationships between objects of those types. For instance, the association Person-isEmployedBy-Enterprise may classify the relationships PeterMiller-isEmployedBy-IBM, SusanSmith-isEmployedBy-IBM and SarahAnderson-isEmployedBy-Google between the objects PeterMiller, SusanSmith and SarahAnderson of type Person as well as Google and IBM of type Enterprise. In other words, associations are relationship types with two or more object types participating in them. An association between two object types is called binary. While binary associations are more common, we may also have to deal with n-ary associations, where n is a natural number greater than 2. For instance, Person-isTreatedIn-Hospital-for-Disease is a 3-ary ("ternary") association between the object types Person, Hospital and Disease.
I guess that with "direct association" you mean a directional (or directed) association, which is an association (with a domain class and a range class) that represents a reference property in its domain class. Such a directional association has an "ownership dot" at its target end.
Please see this book chapter for more about associations.
And see my answer to this SO question for an explanation of aggregations and compositions.
Say you need to architect an app with an entity that can be associated with multiple other kinds of entities. For example, you have a Picture entity that can be associated with a Meal entity, a Person entity, a Boardroom entity, a Furniture entity, etc. I can think of a number of different ways to address this problem, but -- perhaps because I'm new to Core Data -- I'm not comfortable with any of them.
The most obvious approach that comes to mind is simply creating a relationship between Picture and each entity that supports associated pictures, but this seems sloppy since pictures will have multiple "null pointers."
Another possibility is creating a superentity -- Pictureable -- or something. Every entity that supports associated pictures would be a subentity of Pictureable, and Picture itself would have a one-to-one with Pictureable. I find this approach troubling because it can't be used more than once in the context of a project (since Core Data doesn't support multiple inheritance) AND the way Core Data seems to create one table for any given root entity -- assuming a SQLite backing -- has me afeard of grouping a whole bunch of disparate subentities under the umbrella of a common superentity (I realize that thinking along these lines may smack of premature optimization, so let me know if I'm being a ninny).
A third approach is to create a composite key for Picture that consists of a "type" and a "UID." Assuming every entity in my data model has a UID, I can use this key to derive an associated managed object from a Picture instance and vice versa. This approach worries me because it sounds like it might get slow when fetching en masse; it also doesn't feel native enough to me.
A fourth approach -- the one I'm leaning towards for the app I'm working on -- is creating subentities for both Picture and X (where X is either Meal, Person, Boardroom, etc.) and creating a one-to-one between both of those subentities. While this approach seems like the lesser of all evils, it still seems abstruse to my untrained eye, so I wonder if there's a better way.
Edit 1: In the last paragraph, I meant to say I'm leaning towards creating subentities just for Picture, not both Picture and X.
I think the best variations on this theme are (not necessarily in order):
Use separate entities for the pictures associated with Meal, Person, Boardroom, etc. Those entities might all have the same attributes, and they might in fact all be implemented using the same class. There's nothing wrong with that, and it makes it simple to have a bidirectional relationship between each kind of entity and the entity that stores its picture.
Make the picture an attribute of each of the entity types rather than a separate entity. This isn't a great plan with respect to efficiency if you're storing the actual picture data in the database, but it'd be fine if you store the image as a separate file and store the path to that file in an attribute. If the images or the number of records is small, it may not really be a problem even if you do store the image data in the database.
Use a single entity for all the pictures but omit the inverse relationship back to the associated entity. There's a helpful SO question that considers this, and the accepted answer links to the even more helpful Unidirectional Relationships section of the docs. This can be a nice solution to your problem if you don't need the picture->owner relationship, but you should understand the possible risk before you go down that road.
Give your picture entity separate relationships for each possible kind of owner, as you described in the first option you listed. If you'll need to be able to access all the pictures as a group and you need a relationship from the picture back to its owner, and if the number of possible owner entities is relatively small, this might be your best option even if it seems sloppy to have empty attributes.
As you noticed, when you use inheritance with your entities, all the sub-entities end up together in one big table. So, your fourth option (using sub-entities for each kind of picture) is similar under the hood to your first option.
Thinking more about this question, I'm inclined toward using entity inheritance to create subentities for the pictures associated with each type of owner entity. The Picture entity would store just the data that's associated with any picture. Each subentity, like MealPicture and PersonPicture, would add a relationship to it's own particular sort of owner. This way, you get bidirectional Meal<->MealPicture and Person<->PersonPicture relationships, and because each subentity inherits all the common Picture stuff you avoid the DRY violation that was bugging you. In short, you get most of the best parts of options 1 and 3 above. Under the hood, Core Data manages the pictures as in option 4 above, but in use each of the picture subentities only exposes a single relationship.
Just to expand a bit on Caleb's excellent summation...
I think it's important not to over emphasize the similarities between entities and classes. Both are abstractions that help define concrete objects but entities are very "lightweight" compared to classes. For one thing, entities don't have behaviors but just properties. For another, they exist purely to provide other concrete objects e.g. managed object context and persistent stores, a description of the data model so those concrete objects can piece everything together.
In fact, under the hood, there is no NSEntity class, there is only an NSEnitity***Description*** class. Entities are really just descriptions of how the objects in an object graph will fit together. As such, you really don't get all the overhead an inefficiency of multiplying classes when you multiply entities e.g. having a bunch of largely duplicate entities doesn't slow down the app, use more memory, interfere with method chains etc.
So, don't be afraid to use multiple seemingly redundant entities when that is the simplest solution. In Core Data, that is often the most elegant solution.
I am struggling with esactly this dilemma right now. I have many different entities in my model that can be "quantified". Say I have Apple, Pear, Farmer for all of those Entities, I need a AppleStack, PearStack, FarmerGroup, which are all just object+number. I need a generic approach to this because I want to support it in a model editor I am writing, so I decided I will define a ObjectValue abstract entity with attributes object, value. Then I will create child entities of ObjectValue and will subclass them and declare a valueEntity constant. this way I define it only once and I can write generic code that, for example, returns the possible values of the object relationship. Moreover if I need special attributes (and I actually do for a few of those) I can still add them in the child entities.
I have two items A and B, which have a uni directional one-to-one relationship. (A has one B)
In the database these are represented by ATable and BTable, and they are linked together by ABTable. (From the database setup it appears there is a many-to-many relationship but there is not, it was done this way for normalization reasons).
The problem is due to this setup, I have only been able to get NHibernate to map this as a many-to-many relationship between the entities. Is there anyway of making the entities have a one-to-one relationship?
The best I could think of is to leave its has a many to many relationship, and then have two properties on the A entity one that returns a List of B, which would satisfy the mapping and a second non-mapped property that would get the first B from the list, to satisfy my application. - but this seems un-eligant.
Are you sure you mean a one-to-one? I've had so many people ask for one-to-one's when they really mean many-to-one's.
Anyway, short of changing your schema, the easiest thing is what you suggested; however, to make it a little cleaner, you can make the collections private so you're only exposing the two properties that fetch the first item. You can see the various methods in Fluent NHibernate for mapping private properties on the wiki.
You might try combining the join-table with one-to-one mappings in various ways. A join-table mapping permits a single class to be persisted across more than one table which have a one-to-one relationship.