Ambiguity in Model Class Diagram

[GenFusion122]

There are multiplicities given for Interest and Module, however, the lack of a multiplicity value for Github, Phone and Email objects gives the impression that those fields are not optional, as they have the same (none) multiplicity as the required Name and Telegram objects. But that's not the case in the actual program where a person's Github, Phone and Email could be null values.

[nus-pe-script]

Team's Response

The tester categorised this issue as Medium but we feel that it should be Low, as whatever is shown is correct, but according to the tester is missing some information.

Furthermore, we feel that this issue is not a bug.

Multiplicities are optional, as seen from the module website which says "Association multiplicities and the default value can be shown as part of the attribute using the following notation. Both are optional". Hence, omitting them is fine.

Furthermore, although adding multiplicities for all the fields may provide the reader with more information, we feel that it will instead confuse them due to the excess information in one diagram. According to the DG Tips on module website, we were advised not to add too many details to the diagram. Therefore, we deliberately chose to add multiplicities to Interest and Module only to show that there exists a one-to-many relationship. As for the mandatory fields Name and Telegram as well as optional fields GitHub, Phone and Email, they are already stated very clearly in the UG. The command format that we have used are explained clearly under Take note of the Command Format.

Items for the Tester to Verify

❓ Issue response

Team chose [response.Rejected]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: I do not agree, I understand the omission for multiplicity in a class diagram if none of the relationships shows any multiplicity.
However, I think in this case, where there are some multiplicities for some relationships brings with it the implication that the ones that do not have a multiplicity have the same values.

---

❓ Issue severity

Team chose [severity.Low]
Originally [severity.Medium]

• I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

---