Closed Gabriel-Darbord closed 5 months ago
I am not sure genericEntity
is a good name for the relation because it is not really an Entity
May be this is the one we should rename (or may be both)
I think we agree, but the wording of "opposite relation" was poorly chosen.
I'm referring to the opposite of concreteEntity
, which is called genericEntitities
in the diagram, and genericEntity
in the current implementation.
The renaming allows us to write instead of the previous example:
concreteEntity genericization "<- Concretisation" genericEntity "<- ParametricEntity"
Each ParametricEntity can be related to another one by a Concretisation association, where one is more generic and the other is more concrete. The name of the relation of the more generic entity to the association is
concretisation
, which is fitting. However, the name of the opposite relation isgenericEntity
, which I think is misleading. Especially since the relation from the association to the more generic entity is already calledgenericEntity
, where it makes sense. This would lead to code as follows:I suggest to rename the opposite relation of
concretisation
, fromgenericEntity
togenericization
(a real word).