[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Peter,
> Interesting, my inclination so far have been to restrict association
> types to those defined in existing modeling tools. In particular, UML
> and ER modeling. We've barely had requirements for semantics beyond
> basic pointers (references) though it's clear some kind of inheritance
> and composition is needed within the next year. If you're creating your
> own association types how do you model them?
>
I am using UML notations and its included basic association types
(aggregation, composition, inheritance). As you know these basic association
types have their corresponding diagram representations. There is also a non
typed one ended by an arrow. I use a label on the association as a type
specification. So, the association gives information like:
a) cardinality
b) association direction
c) association type
That way, my domain model is not too platform specific and dependent on
class based languages which do not, most of the time, allow association
types to be defined (and often basic association too). For example, if I am
modeling a domain with frame (objects without methods) and associations
between frames I can do so if I can type the associations.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
