FIGURE 6.4 Relationships between insurance object types, Part 1
LANGUAGE FOR MODELING INSURANCES 127
Rather than using different relationship types for connecting speci?¬?c object types,
the relationship types from MOF, namely, Association and Aggregation, were used.
When the metamodel was used in the modeling tool, the right relationship type was
chosen by the tool. If multiple relationship types were possible, the modeling tool
asked the user to choose among the possible ones.
The legal connections were speci?¬?ed in the metamodel by using speci?¬?c role
types. Most of the role types were again inherited from the MOF AssociationEnd,
and therefore had property types like name, multiplicity, and navigability. The latter
two had prede?¬?ned values for speeding up the modeling work. For multiplicity, the
most typical values (0,1; 1,1; 0,M; 1,M) were added to a prede?¬?ned list for quick
selection. For navigability, the selection list was de?¬?ned as having a mandatory
value with a default value of having no navigation. The other possible values that a
modeler could choose were restricted to ???Is navigable??? and ???Is navigable and
references.???
All the relationships were de?¬?ned as binary, although n-ary relationships would
require less modeling work: with an a-ary relationship just one aggregation
FIGURE 6.
Pages:
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255