binary association composite end multiplicity

From: karl wettin (karl.wettin_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: 28 Nov 2004 07:17:24 -0800

I just noticed the following text in the UML 1.5 specification:

3.48.1 Semantics
Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation, which requires
that a part instance be included in at most one composite at a time
and that the composite object has sole resposibility for the
disposition of its parts. The multiplicity of the aggregate end may
not exceed one (it is unshared).

Does the last sentence mean that the following binary association is
invalid?:

[CompositeEndClass]<<>>-- {0..*} {20} --[PartEndClass]

And this valid:

[CompositeEndClass]-- {0..*} {20} --[PartEndClass]

That would make most of my diagrams invalid. 

-- 
  karl

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aggregation vs composition
    ... >> aggregation, take your pick of whichever seems conceptually more ... > The UML specifies the semantics of a composition (composite aggregation) ... > object has sole responsibility for the disposition of its parts" ... if more than one object has a reference to our "part" then no ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Aggregation vs composition
    ... >> Freeing all its allocated resources, so that it can't be used any ... > "Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation, ... the formal definition seems to be quite more clear: ...
    (comp.object)
  • Type 2 SCD thats also a Parent-Child
    ... I'm attempting to build a portfolio rollup dimension that is an SCD ... Type 2 for the parent-child relationships: composite portfolios exist ... aggregation for a parent-child dimension in AS 2000? ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.olap)
  • Re: Aggregation vs composition
    ... > "Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation, ... The multiplicity of the aggregate end may not exceed one (it ... multiplicity of the aggregate end exceeds one. ...
    (comp.object)