Ernesto Revilla
2004-02-24 12:27:11 UTC
Dear Sébastien,
(I think, in the last message I didn't put correctly the accent.)
In section 2.3.4: Relationship
In deleteRule:
The entity in your example is not 'Author' but 'Writer'. On the other hand, the relationships are called there:
* author and
* books
not: toAuthor and toBooks.
Perhaps, there could be a clarification of the UML notation, so that the behaviour of modeling would be a bit clearer for persons without knowledge of UML. I attach it here for your consideration.
Best regards,
Erny
Dear Sébastien,
(I think, in the last message I didn't put correctly the accent.)
In section 2.3.4: Relationship
In deleteRule:
The entity in your example is not 'Author' but 'Writer'. On the other hand, the relationships are called there:
* author and
* books
not: toAuthor and toBooks.
Perhaps, there could be a clarification of the UML notation, so that the behaviour of modeling would be a bit clearer for persons without knowledge of UML. I attach it here for your consideration.
Best regards,
Erny
(I think, in the last message I didn't put correctly the accent.)
In section 2.3.4: Relationship
In deleteRule:
The entity in your example is not 'Author' but 'Writer'. On the other hand, the relationships are called there:
* author and
* books
not: toAuthor and toBooks.
Perhaps, there could be a clarification of the UML notation, so that the behaviour of modeling would be a bit clearer for persons without knowledge of UML. I attach it here for your consideration.
Best regards,
Erny
Dear Sébastien,
(I think, in the last message I didn't put correctly the accent.)
In section 2.3.4: Relationship
In deleteRule:
The entity in your example is not 'Author' but 'Writer'. On the other hand, the relationships are called there:
* author and
* books
not: toAuthor and toBooks.
Perhaps, there could be a clarification of the UML notation, so that the behaviour of modeling would be a bit clearer for persons without knowledge of UML. I attach it here for your consideration.
Best regards,
Erny