SysLem Analysls ueslgn (SAu)(1)

1)As can be seen ln Lhe prevlous secLlon real dependency sysLems are complex
1hls Lends Lo compllcaLe Lhe buslness of reasonlng abouL how Lo nd soluLlons
Lo dependency problems and Lo cause algorlLhms LhaL manlpulaLe dependencles
Lo become horrlbly messy ln slLuaLlons llke Lhls lL ls ofLen a good ldea Lo nd
a slmpler more maLhemaLlcal model of Lhe problem belng analyzed Cf course
lL ls wellknown LhaL package dependencles can be reduced Lo Lhe saLlsfacLlon
of 8oolean equaLlons buL such a reducLlon ls arguably Loo exLreme lL cerLalnly
resulLs ln a maLhemaLlcal model buL Lhe model lL produces hldes Lhe sLrucLure
of Lhe orlglnal problem 1he followlng secLlon descrlbes an alLernaLe model
whlch ls sumclenL Lo capLure any dependency problem (aL leasL ln ueblan) and
reLalns Lhe sLrucLure of a package sysLem
ln "single inheriLance," a common orm o inheriLance, classes have only one base class. Consider Lhe
relaLionship illusLraLed in Lhe ollowing igure.
5impIe 5ingIe-lnheritance Graph


oLe Lhe progression rom general Lo speciic in Lhe igure. AnoLher common aLLribuLe ound in Lhe
design o mosL class hierarchies is LhaL Lhe derived class has a "kind o" relaLionship wiLh Lhe base class. ln
Lhe igure, a 8ook is a kind o a PrinLedDocumenL, and a Paperback8ook is a kind o a book.
One oLher iLem o noLe in Lhe igure. 8ook is boLh a derived class (rom PrinLedDocumenL) and a base
class (Paperback8ook is derived rom 8ook). A skeleLal declaraLion o such a class hierarchy is shown in
Lhe ollowing example.
,, derv_Sng1e1nhertance.cpp
,, comp1e wth: ,l0
c1ass rnted0ocument {),

,, 8ook s derved 1rom rnted0ocument.
c1ass 8ook : pub1c rnted0ocument {),

,, aperback8ook s derved 1rom 8ook.
c1ass aperback8ook : pub1c 8ook {),
PrinLedDocumenL is considered a "direcL base" class Lo 8ook, iL is an "indirecL base" class
Lo Paperback8ook. 1he dierence is LhaL a direcL base class appears in Lhe base lisL o a class declaraLion
and an indirecL base does noL.
1he base class rom which each class is derived is declared beore Lhe declaraLion o Lhe derived class. lL is
noL suicienL Lo provide a orward-reerencing declaraLion or a base class, iL musL be a compleLe
declaraLion.
ln Lhe preceding example, Lhe access speciier pubIic is used. 1he meaning o public, proLecLed, and
privaLe inheriLance is described in Member-Access ConLrol.

StructuraI equation modeIing (SEM) is a statistical technique for testing and estimating causal
relations using a combination of statistical data and qualitative causal assumptions. This definition of SEM
was articulated by the geneticist Sewall Wright (1921),
[1]
the economistTrygve Haavelmo (1943) and the
cognitive scientist Herbert Simon (1953),
[2]
and formally defined by Judea Pearl (2000) using a calculus of
counterfactuals.
[3]

Structural Equation Models (SEM) allow both confirmatory and exploratory modeling, meaning they are
suited to both theory testing and theory development. Confirmatory modeling usually starts out with
a hypothesis that gets represented in a causal model. The concepts used in the model must then
be operationalized to allow testing of the relationships between the concepts in the model. The model is
tested against the obtained measurement data to determine how well the model fits the data. The causal
assumptions embedded in the model often have falsifiable implications which can be tested against the
data.
[4]

With an initial theory SEM can be used inductively by specifying a corresponding model and using data to
estimate the values of free parameters. Often the initial hypothesis requires adjustment in light of model
evidence. When SEM is used purely for exploration, this is usually in the context of exploratory factor
analysis as in psychometric design.
Among the strengths of SEM is the ability to construct latent variables: variables which are not measured
directly, but are estimated in the model from several measured variables each of which is predicted to 'tap
into' the latent variables. This allows the modeler to explicitly capture the unreliability of measurement in
the model, which in theory allows the structural relations between latent variables to be accurately
estimated. Factor analysis, path analysis and regression all represent special cases of SEM.
n SEM, the qualitative causal assumptions are represented by the missing variables in each equation, as
well as vanishing covariances among some error terms. These assumptions are testable in experimental
studies and must be confirmed judgmentally in observational studies.




Entity - Relationship Modelling
The aims oI this chapter are:
O To explain the need Ior entity-relationship modelling
O To explain the terms entity-relationship model, entity-relationship diagram
O To deIine the terms entity type, entity, attribute, attribute value, primary key, relationship,
relationship type, inverse relationship type
O To deIine the grammar oI entity-relationship diagrams
O To describe ways oI classiIying relationship types
O To describe the terms unary, binary, ternary, degree, cardinality and optionality with
regard to relationship types
O To deIine mutually exclusive relationship types
O To show alternative entity-relationship diagramming conventions
O To show how many-many relationship types can be split into one-many relationship types
O To give various examples oI entity-relationship modelling
3.1 Introduction
When a relational database is to be designed, an entity-relationship diagram is drawn at an early
stage and developed as the requirements oI the database and its processing become better
understood Drawing an entity-relationship diagram aids understanding oI an organization's data
needs and can serve as a schema diagram Ior the required system's database A schema disgram
is any diagram that attempts to show the structure oI tha data in a database Nearly all systems
analysis and design methodologies contain entity-relationship diagramming as an important part
oI the methodology and nearly all CASE (Computer Aided SoItware Engineering tools contain
the Iacility Ior drawing entity-relationship diagrams An entity-relationship diagram could serve
as the basis Ior the design oI the Iiles in a conventional Iile-based system as well as Ior a schema
diagram in a database system
The details oI how to draw the diagrams vary slightly Irom one method to another, but they all
have the same basic elements: entity types, attributes and relationships These three categories are
considered to be suIIicient to model the essentially static data-based parts oI any organization's
inIormation processing needs
3.2 Entity Types
An entity type is any type oI object that we wish to store data about Which entity types you
decide to include on your diagram depends on your application In an accounting application Ior
a business you would store data about customers, suppliers, products, invoices and payments and
iI the business manuIactured the products, you would need to store data about materials and
production steps Each oI these would be classiIied as an entity type because you would want to
store data about each one In an entity-relationship diagram an entity type is shown as a box In
Fig 3, CUSTOMER is an entity type Each entity type is shown once There may be many
entity types in an entity-relationship diagram The name oI an entity type is singular since it
represents a type
An entity type is considered to be a set oI objects For this reason some people use the alternative
term entity set An entity is simply one member or example or element or instance oI the type or
set So an entity is one individual within an entity type For example, within the entity type
CUSTOMER, J Smith might be one entity He is an individual entity within the type, an element
in the set, an instance oI the type 'customer'



hLLp//wwwscrlbdcom/doc/36661788/MC0069SMuMCASLM22011 (1) (2) ans