The Generalization relationships should be replaced by Realization relationships.
C.
The Realization relationships should be replaced by Generalization relationships.
D.
The UML syntax rules do not allow the use of Realization relationships between Components and Classes without the application of the stereotypes in a profile.
The provided diagram fragment shows what appears to be Components or Classes with dashed arrows pointing towards them. Typically in UML, a dashed arrow with an unfilled arrowhead represents a Realization relationship, which is used to show that an element (such as an interface) is realized by another element (such as a class or component). However, when we are talking about Classes like "EventRegistration," "MessagePacket," "Attendee," and "Session" which seem to share a common nature or purpose with "EmailServices," these relationships are more appropriately modeled as Generalizations, indicating that they inherit from a common superclass or implement a common interface. Realizations are typically not used in this context.Hence, the dashed arrows in the diagram should be solid lines representing Generalization, not Realization. This answer aligns with the UML 2.x Superstructure Specification, which provides guidance on the usage of Realization and Generalization relationships in class diagrams.
Contribute your Thoughts:
Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). You can switch to a simple comment. It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Submit