Answered

Can a master entity have multiple one-to-one relationships?

I would like to have a data model where a master entity (eg BookComment) has a one-to-one relationship with another master entity (eg Temp) AND also has a one-to-one relationship with another master entity (eg Temp2).

When I try to create the second relationship I get an error:

"Cannot have more than one single to single relationship between two entities"

Is there something wrong in my data model, or is this situation not possible in Bizagi?

I am using 10.6.1.2051 running the studio on Windows Server 2008r2,

using SQLServer 2014.

Alternatively I would be happy with;

Book comment having a 'related attribute relationship' type to Temp

and

Book comment having a 'related attribute relationship' type to Temp2

....however when I do that and then use Temp attributes and Temp2 attributes in a Form the form never shows any data for those attributes.....which makes them useless.

Comments (21)

photo
0

Dear Users,

It is not a bug because it is a design consideration for business data models. It is a stage little used. Even though it is similar to a relational model, Bizagi cannot be compared to a real E/R model because Bizagi is thinking in to solve business problems.

The data model of Bizagi incorporates many of the elements of E/R model, but it is not intended support all. In the product design was not considered multiple one-to-one relationship because it was assessed a rare scenario.

If you considered this as a good idea for a future release, we invite you to create it as an idea in our section.

Regards

photo
1

Nice suggestions , For what it's worth , if anyone are wanting to merge PDF files , my friend discovered a service here http://goo.gl/2pgxlc

photo
1

I'm having this problem too. I don't see how this can be said this is not a bug. A 1-1 relationship is exactly that. The single-to-single relationship that is enforced by bizagi is something else..... what is it?

Please can someone indicate what the restrictions are? What was the 'design consideration' (implying that this was a conscious decision) that caused this behaviour?

Note, that we are not suggesting multiple 1-1 relationships explicitly, only that 1-1 relationships work as a user would expect. Multiple 1-N relationships are not presumably an explicit requirement but they work as expected.