Multiplicity not shown for a stereotyped object

[Damir]

If an instance of a stereotyped class (let say <<entity>>) is dropped onto an activity diagram, the created instance gets the same stereotype. If multiplicity of that object is set, it doesn't show on the diagram unless "use stereotyped icons" is unchecked in the diagramm's properties.
Bug or a feature?
Thanks
Damir

[Jan ´Bary´ Glas]

In fact an instance is one. It has a link to another instance.
If I have a class "dog" with association "has" to "person" with instances "Rex" and "me", the "my dog" instance has no multiplicity to "me". The link says the "person me" has a "dog Rex". There is no multiplicity in UML for instances as I know and no sence as well.

[Jan ´Bary´ Glas]

Forgotten the sterreotypes.  

[Damir]

I'm talking about activity diagramms, not class diagramms.

when doing BPM, one must show that many instances (*) of some class are input to a process or an activity. For instance, Rational Rose draws 3 frames one overlapping another behind a stereotyped icon of object in activity diagram.

any hints?

[sargasso]

Is there a necessity for "many" instances of the object to exist to make the flow work?  Does the process process all the instances at once or one at a time?

If the process is, say, "sort boxes by color" then the process obviously needs a set of boxes to work on.  However, the instance is an instance of the object "A_SET_OF_BOXES"  of which there is only one.

If the process is, say, "Shred any documents in my intray" then the process works (loops) destroying one object at a time, so there is still only ONE instance being processed at a time.

bruce

[Damir]

thanks,
that would be a workaround to model such behaviour in IS architecture. Unfortunately, I need it in BPM. For instance, there is a kind of document, and a process gets a set of these documents, not one: a guy walks into an office and delivers a bundle of forms. Since these documents are nothing but a bundle of documents by the only fact that they have been brought together, it would be wrong to model "a set of documents" as a business entity because it does not reflect the real system. Especially because there are circumstances when a set of documents exists as an business entity.
thanks for any reply

[Paolo F Cantoni]

thanks,
that would be a workaround to model such behaviour in IS architecture. Unfortunately, I need it in BPM. For instance, there is a kind of document, and a process gets a set of these documents, not one: a guy walks into an office and delivers a bundle of forms. Since these documents are nothing but a bundle of documents by the only fact that they have been brought together, it would be wrong to model "a set of documents" as a business entity because it does not reflect the real system. Especially because there are circumstances when a set of documents exists as an business entity.
thanks for any reply

Hi Damir,

Welcome...

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I agree with you that there probably is a a need for two shapes - a singular shape and a multiple shape to delineate where there may be multiples.  However, that having been said, there's the question of when do you use which one?

Does the bundle of documents have some identity?  If not, then as bruce has pointed out, it's just a lot of single documents.  There's really no need to use the multiplicity.  If, on the other hand, the documents are in some way a formal collection - such as a set of documents that arrived in a particular (identified) courier envelope - and which are, therefore, tracked against it and some of whose facts are joined to the facts concerning the delivery of the envelope - then you have a different model.

HTH,
Paolo

[Damir]

yes, it is a lot of single documents (but not just one) that come in simultaneously as opposite of a single document that could have came. I need to model this difference (it IS important in business sence). Anyhow: when object is not shown as icon the multiplicity IS shown, when object has steretyped icon - it is not.

(I want to say that a bundle of documents come and that then, they are processed. I don't want to say that documents come one by one and that then they are processed.)

regards!
Damir

[sargasso]

Inductive logic : Let's consider the end-points.

Is the process impacted in some fundamental way if the package contains only one document?  Is it different when the package contains two documents, three documents etc etc?

If yes, then process A is dependent on an implied attribute of the single incoming entity Package.  To wit Package.documents.count().   However, there is only one incoming object.

If no, then What is the exact importance of the fact that the package contains "n" documents?

tbc...

bruce

p.s. why I am harping on is that IMO 99% of the time there really is only one incoming object, and as you have stated yourself "a set of documents exists as an business entity".

[Damir]

I said: "Especially because there are circumstances when a set of documents exists as an business entity", meaning: this is not that case and I wish to distinguish that.  

to answer your question: the process is in no fundamental way diffrent regarding the number of incoming objects.  I want to model the fact that there are documents, not a document on input. These differences are important when doing business analysis, especially BPR (let's say someone want's to optimize that process and he thinks from the diagramm that only one-by-one documents are comming in).

If I want to show this, currently I have to disable stereotyped icons on the diagram. If I lose that, the diagram loses "some of its charm", and its harder to read for business people.

damir