[Modeling] Modeling an Agent Class- composition
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:40:10 +0200
I agree someway with you Hong.
I think, an employee can not be a class. It is a role that object in the
class person can perform.
Can be a solution to put such kind of relations between roles? That it
is to say, our idea is:
******** play ----------- interact ---------- play
CLASS *------->* ROLE * ------------------- * ROLE *<------ CLASS
Person * * employee* * Manager*
******** ----------- ----------
Thus, the implementation of Role is a set of method-calls of the
class person (note if you are a person who works for a company and
you lose your job, you still knows how to work, thus, method for
work must be maintain in class person). Then, if you destroy the
department, you can delete such roles.
Thus, we decouple behaviour from functionality. We need a relation
interact, and a relation play (can be also uses).
Does it makes sense?
> Hi, Gerd, and All,
> It is so good that you agreed with me that there is a new
> property of the part-whole relationship that we should look at.
> > > Shared or not shared is about whether one entity can be a part of
> > > many others entities. Lifetime is about whether the part will be
> > > killed when the whole is killed. Am I right?
> > Yes, you are.
> > > If yes, then, none of the above features tells that if a
> part quit
> > > from the whole or the whole is destroyed (it is possible
> in dynamic
> > > classification), what happens to its roles played in the whole.
> > Yes, this question refers to additional properties of the
> > relationship.
> Thank you. This property has not been recognised before. I
> believe it is important for AUML because I found it is common
> in role modelling.
> > An aggregation, and also a compositiom,
> > can have lifetime dependency (= inseparability of parts) or
> not. What
> > is your problem? Would you like to be able to specify this lifetime
> > dependency in a model? Then you can use a Boolean- valued tag
> > "inseparable=true" for the part association end (as proposed in the
> > paper mentioned below).
> > -Gerd
> The problem is that existing part-whole relations in UML is
> inadequate. What I want is a more clear definition of
> part-whole relation in AUML and take the new property into
> consideration. Explicitly defining such properties can be a
> way to solve the promblem.
> Modeling mailing list