Entity relationship diagram for social networking website icons

Document Entities | Oracle Magazine

entity relationship diagram for social networking website icons

A smartphone with icons of social networking apps (Photo credit: KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images) High School Networks for Messenger looks like it is a way for sharing political, religious and relationship data from their profile. . while bringing global growth to the company's media entities. TOPIC: Collect one example for Mapping fro ER Model to Relational model. SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE: The given ER diagram consists of 5. entities and relationships between adjacent attributes. of the radial needles emanating from a star icon, and Chernoff faces (Chernoff, ) attempt when combining with other information structures (such as networks) because they leave the Examples include social networks (Hansen et al., ), literature citations.

Document Entities

Jared Lanier frames the point cynically when he states that: That is, such architectures tend to treat human relations as if they are all of a kind, ignoring the profound differences among types of social relation familial, professional, collegial, commercial, civic, etc. As a consequence, the privacy controls of such architectures often fail to account for the variability of privacy norms within different but overlapping social spheres.

A key design question, then, is how SNS privacy interfaces can be made more accessible and more socially intuitive for users. These phenomena raise many ethical concerns, the most general of which may be this: In an early study of online communities, Bakardjieva and Feenberg suggested that the rise of communities predicated on the open exchange of information may in fact require us to relocate our focus in information ethics from privacy concerns to concerns about alienation; that is, the exploitation of information for purposes not intended by the relevant community.

Finally, privacy issues with SNS highlight a broader philosophical problem involving the intercultural dimensions of information ethics; Rafael Capurro has noted the way in which narrowly Western conceptions of privacy occlude other legitimate ethical concerns regarding new media practices.

For example, he notes that in addition to Western worries about protecting the private domain from public exposure, we must also take care to protect the public sphere from the excessive intrusion of the private. Though he illustrates the point with a comment about intrusive uses of cell phones in public spaces47the rise of mobile social networking has amplified this concern by several factors. The ethical and metaphysical issues generated by the formation of virtual identities and communities have attracted much philosophical interest see Introna and Rodogno Yet SNS still enable users to manage their self-presentation and their social networks in ways that offline social spaces at home, school or work often do not permit.

This raises a number of ethical questions: Do they display any notable differences from the aspirational identities of non-SNS users? Are the values and aspirations made explicit in SNS contexts more or less heteronomous in origin than those expressed in non-SNS contexts?

Do the more explicitly aspirational identity performances on SNS encourage users to take steps to actually embody those aspirations offline, or do they tend to weaken the motivation to do so? He admits that in theory the many-to-many or one-to-many relations enabled by SNS allow for exposure to a greater variety of opinions and attitudes, but in practice Parsell worries that they often have the opposite effect.

Building from de Laatwho suggests that members of virtual communities embrace a distinctly hyperactive style of communication to compensate for diminished informational cues, Parsell claims that in the absence of the full range of personal identifiers evident through face-to-face contact, SNS may also promote the deindividuation of personal identity by exaggerating and reinforcing the significance of singular shared traits liberal, conservative, gay, Catholic, etc.

Parsell also notes the existence of inherently pernicious identities and communities that may be enabled or enhanced by some Web 2.

entity relationship diagram for social networking website icons

While Parsell believes that certain Web 2. Such tools, however, come at some cost to user autonomy—a value that in other circumstances is critical to respecting the ethical demands of identity, as noted by Noemi Manders-Huits She argues that SNS developers have a duty to protect and promote the interests of their users in autonomously constructing and managing their own moral and practical identities.

SNS such as Facebook can also be viewed as enabling authenticity in important ways. The messy collision of my family, friends and coworkers on Facebook can be managed with various tools offered by the site, allowing me to direct posts only to specific sub-networks that I define.

But the far simpler and less time-consuming strategy is to come to terms with the collision—allowing each network member to get a glimpse of who I am to others, while at the same time asking myself whether these expanded presentations project a person that is more multidimensional and interesting, or one that is manifestly insincere.

As Tamara Wandel and Anthony Beavers put it: I am thus no longer radically free to engage in creating a completely fictive self, I must become someone real, not who I really am pregiven from the start, but who I am allowed to be and what I am able to negotiate in the careful dynamic between who I want to be and who my friends from these multiple constituencies perceive me, allow me, and need me to be.

Ethical preoccupations with the impact of SNS on our authentic self-constitution and representation may also be regarded as assuming a false dichotomy between online and offline identities; the informational theory of personal identity offered by Luciano Floridi problematizes this distinction.

Soraj Hongladarom employs such an informational metaphysic to deny that any clear boundary can be drawn between our offline selves and our selves as cultivated through SNS. Instead, our personal identities online and off are taken as externally constituted by our informational relations to other selves, events and objects.

LinkedIn encourages social relations organized around our professional lives, Twitter is useful for creating lines of communication between ordinary individuals and figures of public interest, MySpace was for a time a popular way for musicians to promote themselves and communicate with their fans, and Facebook, which began as a way to link university cohorts and now connects people across the globe, has seen a surge in business profiles aimed at establishing links to existing and future customers.

This view is robustly opposed by Adam Brigglewho notes that online friendships might enjoy certain unique advantages. For example, Briggle asserts that friendships formed online might be more candid than offline ones, thanks to the sense of security provided by physical distance He also notes the way in which asynchronous written communications can promote more deliberate and thoughtful exchanges But it did not take long for empirical studies of actual SNS usage trends to force a profound rethinking of this problem-space.

Mobile SNS applications such as Foursquare, Loopt and Google Latitude amplify this type of functionality further, by enabling friends to locate one another in their community in real-time, enabling spontaneous meetings at restaurants, bars and shops that would otherwise happen only by coincidence.

Social Networking Site-ERD | Editable Entity Relationship Diagram Template on Creately

Yet lingering ethical concerns remain about the way in which SNS can distract users from the needs of those in their immediate physical surroundings consider the widely lamented trend of users obsessively checking their social media feeds during family dinners, business meetings, romantic dates and symphony performances. The debate over the value and quality of online friendships continues Sharp ; Froding and Peterson ; Elder ; in large part because the typical pattern of those friendships, like most social networking phenomena, continues to evolve.

Edward Spence further suggests that to adequately address the significance of SNS and related information and communication technologies for the good life, we must also expand the scope of philosophical inquiry beyond its present concern with narrowly interpersonal ethics to the more universal ethical question of prudential wisdom. Do SNS and related technologies help us to cultivate the broader intellectual virtue of knowing what it is to live well, and how to best pursue it?

Or do they tend to impede its development? This concern about prudential wisdom and the good life is part of a growing philosophical interest in using the resources of classical virtue ethics to evaluate the impact of SNS and related technologies, whether these resources are broadly Aristotelian VallorConfucian Wong or both Ess This program of research promotes inquiry into the impact of SNS not merely on the cultivation of prudential virtue, but on the development of a host of other moral and communicative virtues, such as honesty, patience, justice, loyalty, benevolence and empathy.

The worry is that such insularity will promote extremism and the reinforcement of ill-founded opinions, while also preventing citizens of a democracy from recognizing their shared interests and experiences Sunstein Finally, there is the question of the extent to which SNS can facilitate political activism, civil disobedience and popular revolutions resulting in the overthrow of authoritarian regimes. Commonly referenced examples include the North African revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, with which Facebook and Twitter were respectively associated Marturano ; Frick and Oberprantacher When SNS in particular are considered in light of these questions, some distinctive considerations arise.

entity relationship diagram for social networking website icons

First, sites like Facebook and Twitter as opposed to narrower SNS utilities such as LinkedIn facilitate the sharing of, and exposure to, an extremely diverse range of types of discourse. On any given day on Facebook a user may encounter in her NewsFeed a link to an article in a respected political magazine followed by a video of a cat in a silly costume, followed by a link to a new scientific study, followed by a lengthy status update someone has posted about their lunch, followed by a photo of a popular political figure overlaid with a clever and subversive caption.

Vacation photos are mixed in with political rants, invitations to cultural events, birthday reminders and data-driven graphs created to undermine common political, moral or economic beliefs.

Thus while a user has a tremendous amount of liberty to choose which forms of discourse to pay closer attention to, and tools with which to hide or prioritize the posts of certain members of her network, she cannot easily shield herself from at least a superficial acquaintance with a diversity of private and public concerns of her fellows. This has the potential to offer at least some measure of protection against the extreme insularity and fragmentation of discourse that is incompatible with the public sphere.

Philosophers of technology often speak of the affordances or gradients of particular technologies in given contexts Vallor insofar as they make certain patterns of use more attractive or convenient for users while not rendering alternative patterns impossible. Third, one must ask whether SNS can skirt the dangers of a plebiscite model of democratic discourse, in which minority voices are inevitably dispersed and drowned out by the many.

Existing SNS lack the institutional structures necessary to ensure that minority voices enjoy not only free, but qualitatively equal access to the deliberative function of the public sphere.

Fourth, one must also consider the quality of informational exchanges on SNS and the extent to which they promote a genuinely dialogical public sphere marked by the exercise of critical rationality. While we have noted above that exposure to well-informed opinions and reliable evidential sources is facilitated by many of the most popular SNS, exposure does not guarantee attention or consumption. Many scholars worry that in SNS environments, substantive contributions to civic discourse increasingly function as flotsam on a virtual sea of trivially amusing or shallow content, weakening the civic habits and practices of critical rationality that we need in order to function as well-informed and responsible democratic citizens Carr ; Ess Furthermore, while the most popular SNS do promote norms of responsive practice, these norms tend to privilege brevity and immediate impact over substance and depth in communication; Vallor suggests that this bodes poorly for the cultivation of those communicative virtues essential to a flourishing public sphere.

For example, the norms of academic freedom in the U. It remains to be seen what equilibrium can be found between civility and free expression in communities increasingly mediated by SNS communications. There is also the question of whether SNS will necessarily preserve a democratic ethos as they come to reflect increasingly pluralistic and international social networks.

An even more pressing question is whether civic discourse and activism on SNS will be compromised or manipulated by the commercial interests that currently own and manage the technical infrastructure.

This concern is driven by the growing economic power and political influence of companies in the technology sector, and the potentially disenfranchising and disempowering effects of an economic model in which users play a fundamentally passive role Floridi Indeed, the relationship between social media users and service providers has become increasingly contentious, as users struggle to demand more privacy, better data security and more effective protections from online harassment in an economic context where they have little or no direct bargaining power.

This imbalance was powerfully illustrated by the revelation in that Facebook researchers had quietly conducted psychological experiments on users without their knowledge, manipulating their moods by altering the balance of positive or negative items in their News Feeds Goel The study adds yet another dimension to growing concerns about the ethics and validity of social science research that relies on SNS-generated data Buchanan and Zimmer Ironically, in the power struggle between users and SNS providers, social networking platforms themselves have become the primary battlefield, where users vent their collective outrage in an attempt to force service providers into responding to their demands.

The results are sometimes positive, as when Twitter users, after years of complaining, finally shamed the company in into providing better reporting tools for online harassment. Get all the details and find out how to get started. In component-based development CBDcomponent diagrams offer architects a natural format to begin modeling a solution.

Component diagrams allow an architect to verify that a system's required functionality is being implemented by components, thus ensuring that the eventual system will be acceptable. In addition, component diagrams are useful communication tools for various groups. The diagrams can be presented to key project stakeholders and implementation staff. While component diagrams are generally geared towards a system's implementation staff, component diagrams can generally put stakeholders at ease because the diagram presents an early understanding of the overall system that is being built.

System administrators find component diagrams useful because they get an early view of the logical software components that will be running on their systems. Although system administrators will not be able to identify the physical machines or the physical executables from the diagram, a component diagram will nevertheless be welcomed because it provides early information about the components and their relationships which allows sys-admins to loosely plan ahead.

The notation The component diagram notation set now makes it one of the easiest UML diagrams to draw. Figure 1 shows a simple component diagram using the former UML 1.

As you can see, a component in UML 1. However, the UML 1. For that reason, UML 2 dramatically enhances the notation set of the component diagram, as we will see throughout the rest of this article.

The UML 2 notation set scales better, and the notation set is also more informative while maintaining its ease of understanding. Let's step through the component diagram basics according to UML 2.

MAPPING ER TO RELATIONAL MODEL – SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, ROLL NO: 42, S5CS2 | LBS kuttipedia

Edit your code anywhere with Git repos and issue tracking, deliver continuously with an automated pipeline, get Insights to improve quality, and more. Drawing a component in UML 2 is now very similar to drawing a class on a class diagram. In fact, in UML 2 a component is merely a specialized version of the class concept.

Which means that the notation rules that apply to the class classifier also apply to the component classifier. If you read and understood my previous article [http: In UML 2, a component is drawn as a rectangle with optional compartments stacked vertically. Figure 2 shows three different ways a component can be drawn using the UML 2 specification. In UML, a rectangle without any stereotype classifier is interpreted as a class element.

A component element can have additional compartments stacked below the name compartment. As mentioned earlier, a component is an autonomous unit that provides one or more public interfaces.

Figure 3 shows the Order component having a second compartment that denotes what interfaces the Order component provides and requires. Even though components are autonomous units they still may depend on the services provided by other components. Because of this, documenting a component's required interfaces is useful. The additional compartment here shows the interfaces that the Order component provides and requires In the example Order component shown in Figure 3, the component provides the interfaces of OrderEntry and AccountPayable.

Additionally, the component also requires another component that provides the Person interface. Figure 3 does not show the Order component in its complete context. In a real-world model the OrderEntry, AccountPayable, and Person interfaces would be present in the system's model. This second way builds off the single rectangle, with the component's name in it, and places what the UML 2 specification calls interface symbols" connected to the outside of the rectangle.

This second approach is illustrated in Figure 4. Interface symbols with only a half circle at their end a. Even though Figure 4 looks much different from Figure 3, both figures provide the same information — i. Modeling a component's relationships When showing a component's relationship with other components, the lollipop and socket notation must also include a dependency arrow as used in the class diagram. On a component diagram with lollipops and sockets, note that the dependency arrow comes out of the consuming requiring socket and its arrow head connects with the provider's lollipop, as shown in Figure 5.

A component diagram that shows how the Order System component depends on other components View image at full size Figure 5 shows that the Order System component depends both on the Customer Repository and Inventory System components.

Subsystems In UML 2 the subsystem classifier is a specialized version of a component classifier. Because of this, the subsystem notation element inherits all the same rules as the component notation element.

The only difference is that a subsystem notation element has the keyword of subsystem" instead of component," as shown in Figure 6. An example of a subsystem element The UML 2 specification is quite vague on how a subsystem is different from a component. The specification does not treat a component or a subsystem any differently from a modeling perspective. Compared with UML 1. But there's a reason. This change did introduce fuzziness into the picture, but this fuzziness is more of a reflection of reality versus a mistake in the UML 2 specification.

entity relationship diagram for social networking website icons