• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
  • Tim Cooke
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Rob Spoor
  • Junilu Lacar
  • paul wheaton
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Scott Selikoff
  • Piet Souris
  • Jj Roberts
  • fred rosenberger

Association subsetting/generalising quandary!

Posts: 4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I am refining my Part-2 assignment's domain model to construct my class diagram, and I have a question about "association subsetting/generalising". I want to show associations, between superclasses (that I have introduced), which are a generalisation of the existing associations, between existing classes in the domain model.

The "generalised associations" will allow me to manage the superclass, instead of managing the individual subclasses.

To depict this problem, please see the arbitrary example below in the first attachment.

I want to "generalise" some of these associations and make my class diagram, somewhat as shown in the second attachment. The highlighted (Pet <--> PetInvoice) association is the generalisation of the existing many-to-many associations.

Should I also show the subsetting of associations, as described in "Association Subsetting" (section 2.3, Figure 3) of this paper, which is, essentially what I want to do in my diagram:
Association Subsetting link (see section 2.3, Figure 3)

Alternatively, how should I show both the specialised and generalised associations?

Omitting the generalised (implicit) association, seems like the cleanest approach, but I was not sure if this is correct, as per UML, because usually I would, in a real-world problem, show the most relevant generalised associations, and leave out the specialised ones as an implementation detail, where as here, the specialised associations were part of the existing assignment domain model, and hence the perplexity.

Is a modification (or extension?) like this, within the scope of the minor changes permitted while making the class diagram for the assignment?

If this seems like too much modification of the original domain model, any suggestions on how to handle a situation, where I want to associate a SLSB manager, to the generalised entity, will be greatly appreciated.

Cade and Sheil do something like this in JustBuildIt Example (@AvailabilityItem) in their book, but that is only at one AssociationEnd; what I want to do is for both AssociationEnds.

Thanks for your time.


P.S. The example shown in the attachment is a totally fictitious and highly simplified one, as an aid to ask my question; it does not quite show the associations in my actual assignment model.
[Thumbnail for first.JPG]
[Thumbnail for second.JPG]
Kaps Dsouza
Posts: 4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No takers? I thought this was a more common problem. Or am I totally off the mark?
pie. tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic