On 24 Jul 2022, at 18:21, gashu...@gmail.com <gashu...@gmail.com> wrote:Should an Association’s AggregationKind be “shared” or “composite“ when the relationship between the aggregate (e.g., a whole, a collection), when the aggregate represents a context (e.g., a simulation, a situation) not an [Item|Entity], and the part(s) (e.g., member(s) of the context, situation, simulation) whose life time(s) is/are NOT dependent on the life time of the aggregate? I argue the AggregationKind SHOULD be “shared”. The OMG’s “Risk Analysis and Assessment Modeling Language (RAAML) uses “composite” in its examples when given the aforementioned. I argue that “composite” explicitly asserts “Parthood” of the related model element to the aggregate model element. In the case of the aggregate representing a context (e.g., analysis, simulation, situation) AggregationKind should be “shared’; as all of these contexts explicitly represent collections of entities having a membership in the collection with each being independent of the aggregate’s life time.
Other’s insights?
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SysML Forum" group.
Public website: http://www.SysMLforum.com
To post to this group, send email to sysml...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sysmlforum+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sysmlforum?hl=en_US?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SysML Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sysmlforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sysmlforum/91662bdb-fcf6-460c-b891-24ad2f65861en%40googlegroups.com.