- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:48:31 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2753 ------- Comment #3 from mike@saxonica.com 2008-01-08 09:48 ------- The diagram is clearly intended to be a "UML Class Diagram", for which you can find a tutorial at http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/resources/uml2_tutorial/uml2_classdiagram.html (The actual specification can be reached via www.uml.org, but the PDF file crashes Firefox on my machine). I think the dashed line has been made dashed purely because it has a crossover with solid lines; there are no semantics intended. All the arrows on the diagram are shown as "aggregation" relationships. I think many UML users tend to show all 1-to-many associations as aggregation relationships simply because the notation is more graphic; in fact I have never understood the distinction UML tries to make between aggregations and more general associations; it seems to be entirely subjective. One could certainly question the analysis: for example element-declaration should not have separate relationships with simple-type-definition and complex-type-definition, it should have a single relationship with type-definition, which should exist as a generalisation of simple-type and complex-type. This one is clearly a many-to-many relationship, and although I think it's legal in UML, I personally find the notion of modelling a many-to-many relationship as an aggregation pretty weird.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 09:48:33 UTC