uml - Does aggregation have to be one-to-many?

Question

I've always avoided using aggregation because it seems so subjective which one-to-many relationships should be classed as aggregations. But I'm reviewing a model produced by someone else in which aggregations are used for many-to-many relationships (as in: a course consists of several modules, a module may be part of several courses). That strikes me as plain wrong, but I can't find a definitive rule against it. What's the official ruling?

Answer 1

Two things:

1. Are shared aggregations allowed? According to the UML spec, yes.
2. Is it useful in practice? Generally I'd say no.

I am not a fan of the UML Aggregation relationship. Whilst ownership is intuitively appealing, it is too subjective practically. I don't use it, and generally don't recommend it be used (although see footnote). Instead, focus on the important questions:

1. What's the cardinality?
2. What's the create/delete behaviour?
3. Why does the relationship exist? (i.e. what business fact/rule is the relationship capturing?

All above can be done with straight associations. If the answer is (a) it's one to many, (b) the 'one' end is responsible for creating/deleting the 'many' end and (c) you really want to, then use the Composite association. Aggregation however doesn't generally improve readability of the model, it adds confusion and detracts from surfacing the underlying domain rules/requirements.

hth.

footnote: there is one scenario where Aggregation does have well-defined semantics and can be useful. Specifically, if you have a recursive relationship, Aggregation says the resultant object structure is acyclic (i.e. a DAG). Downside is relatively few people realise that property - certainly not business domain experts. So you typically have to highlight anyway, e.g. in a comment / constraint.