5 Relationships between insurance object types, Part 2
128 INSURANCE PRODUCTS
relationship between the Product bundle and Products would be needed, rather than
drawing each aggregation as a separate relationship and ?¬?lling the same aggregation
information multiple times. Since the users of the language were not experienced in
modeling, the choice to make model creation simple was emphasized. Figure 6.5
represents the remaining object types and their connections.
Along with the bindings between the object types, role types, and relationship
types, constraints related to these domain concepts were de?¬?ned. These constraints
added to the metamodel and include the following:
. A Danger could be connected to only one Event.
. A Danger could be connected to only one Damage.
. A Product can have only one Insurant.
. A Product bundle can have only one policy holder.
. A Risk can be connected to only one Danger.
. A Risk can be connected to only one Payment.
. A Risk can be connected to only one Insured object.
. A Tariff component can be connected to only one Surplus.
Implementation of the metamodel also revealed somemismatches in the original
de?¬?nition of the metamodel. These were partly because MOF was used. For
example, the inheritance relationship originating from MOF was changed in the
metamodel so that inheritance was only possible between similar types of domain
elements: risks could inherit properties from another risk element but not from a
product or an insured person.
Pages:
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256