Modeling question: "Composite" link?

[Molto Mike]

Dear all,

in a class diagram I might have defined a composite aggregation between class "A" (parent) and class "B" (child).

In a corresponding object diagram I show instances "a:A" and "b:B".

Now, UML says that between instance specifications in an object diagram you typically have links that may carry role names and even navigation arrows:

An instance specification whose classifier is an association represents a link and is shown using the same notation as for an association, but the solid path or paths connect instance specifications rather than classifiers. It is not necessary to show an underlined name where it is clear from its connection to instance specifications that it represents a link and not an association. End names can adorn the ends. Navigation arrows can be shown, but if shown, they must agree with the navigation of the association ends. (from UML Superstructure/03-08-02)

Would it also be fine to also show the filled diamond to indicate composite aggregation? IMHO, this would clarify the diagram and the semantics is the same as for navigation arrows ("must be consistent with class diagram")...

Any opinions?

Thanks,
Mike