Cardinality between supertype and subtype — evaluate the statement: “In an Enhanced ER (EER) model, there is cardinality between the supertype and subtype.” State whether this is correct or incorrect.

Introduction / Context:
In EER modeling, specialization/generalization connects a supertype to its subtypes. This connection is not a typical “relationship” with variable cardinality; rather, each subtype’s instances are by definition also instances of the supertype (an “is-a” relationship). The question asks whether we speak of cardinality between the supertype and subtype.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Specialization includes constraints: disjoint vs. overlapping, total vs. partial participation.
• Participation (total/partial) is not the same as relationship cardinality like 1:M or M:N.
• Every subtype occurrence corresponds to exactly one supertype occurrence.

Concept / Approach:
Because a subtype “is a” supertype, the mapping is inherently one-to-one: each subtype instance matches exactly one supertype instance. Modeling tools depict participation (double line for total) and disjointness/overlap, not variable cardinality. Therefore, saying “there is cardinality between supertype and subtype” is misleading—what exists are specialization constraints, not general 1:M or M:N cardinalities.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
When transforming to relational schemas, subtype tables share the supertype’s primary key (1:1). There is no 1:M option here, validating the point.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Correct” confuses participation constraints with relationship cardinality.
• “Only when total” is still wrong; total vs. partial affects coverage, not cardinality.
• Notation style does not convert specialization into variable cardinality.

Common Pitfalls:
Using crow’s foot symbols on specialization connectors; misreading total participation as “many.”

Final Answer:
Incorrect