79 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
## Aspect 1
|
|
|
|
Grade 6/6
|
|
|
|
Museums should probably use an ID rather than the name as Key.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 2
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 3
|
|
|
|
Grade: 3/6
|
|
|
|
Wrong use of week entities between Museum/Storage and Location, PiecesOfArt and Sculptures/Paintings/Others as they Are 1-to-1 relationships.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 4
|
|
|
|
Grade 0/6
|
|
|
|
N Arts should be a be able to move M times to 1 location.
|
|
|
|
Current implementation allow multiples moves on one day.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 5
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
Arity is well chosen.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 6
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
Entities are well chosen.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 7
|
|
|
|
Grade: 5/6
|
|
|
|
Street number in storage sites should not be there as it belong to the location, and the size attribute is missing
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 8
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
All relationships are well chosen.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 9
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
- Other types of art are available with "Other", but only a type can be specified, and no other information.
|
|
- One piece of art belong to only one collection.
|
|
|
|
It was pretty easy to understand those design choices as the diagram is well designed.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 10
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 11
|
|
|
|
Grade: 5/6
|
|
|
|
The same small mistakes have been made in the UML diagram than in the ER diagram, but the global design is still very good.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 12
|
|
|
|
Grade: 6/6
|
|
|
|
The diagrams are consistent.
|
|
|
|
## Aspect 13
|
|
|
|
Grade: 1/6 (as requested by the teacher)
|
|
|
|
The UML diagram is easier to understand than the ER diagram because it has way less forms, and lines represents only relationships between entities and not attributes.
|