Unknown classes in person class diagram

[hjuntan]

In the person model class diagram, what are the classes Department; Products; TermsOfServices; Skills, etc. ? You should represent them as separate classes with their own structure

[nus-pe-bot]

Team's Response

As the Client, Supplier, and Employee extends from Person class and does not have many more fields that specifically belongs to each subclass, therefore, it is more readable to just group these Client, Supplier, and Employee classes. Also, as Person is an abstract class in NetConnect, showing limited fields that Person in general could has does not give much practical information. Instead, as a person in NetConnect has to only be categorized into either Client, Supplier, or Employee, we therefore could show what are all the fields that they can have.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: Firstly, I understand that simplifying the model class diagram to something more readable is better especially when the fields are simple. However, it might cause unnecessary confusion. For example, the Products in both Supplier and Client class.

• Are each Product being stored as a String, i.e ArrayList<String> or does it has it's own separate class, i.e ArrayList<Product>? that has it's own unique functionalities;

• What is the meaning behind products in the classes, i.e can the Supplier buying/selling the product, is the Client buying/processing the product?;

• What is the multiplicity between Client/Supplier with Product, i.e must a Supplier have at least one product(since supplier cant be called a supplier if they cant supply any products)?

Also, as Person is an abstract class in NetConnect

Secondly, it is not explicitly mentioned in the class model diagram attached or anywhere else in the DG that Person is an abstract class. My bad.

---