In UML design terminology, composition is considered a stronger form of which object oriented relationship?

Introduction / Context:
Composition and aggregation both model whole part relationships, but they differ in strength and lifecycle semantics. Understanding the distinction helps model ownership, lifetime, and deletion cascading correctly.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Aggregation represents a has a relationship with shared ownership.
• Composition represents exclusive ownership where the part cannot outlive the whole.
• UML depicts aggregation with a hollow diamond and composition with a filled diamond.

Concept / Approach:
Composition is a stronger form of aggregation because it implies strong ownership and coincident lifetimes. If the composite (whole) is destroyed, its components (parts) are destroyed with it. Aggregation, by contrast, indicates a weaker association where parts may exist independently.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Modeling tools and textbooks present composition as a strict variant of aggregation with stronger constraints on lifetime and containment.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Encapsulation is about information hiding and is unrelated to whole part ownership strength.
• Inheritance models is a relationships, not whole part.
• All of the above cannot be correct since only aggregation is the corresponding base form.

Common Pitfalls:
Overusing composition where aggregation suffices; confusing visual notation; assuming composition always implies physical containment rather than logical ownership.

Final Answer:
Aggregation