Are 1:1, 1:N, and N:M ER relationships “also known as HAS-A relationships,” or is “HAS-A” primarily an object-oriented association term rather than ER cardinality terminology?

Introduction / Context:
ER modeling uses precise terms for relationships and cardinalities (1:1, 1:N, N:M). “HAS-A” is a colloquial phrase drawn from object-oriented design to describe aggregation or composition between classes. It is not a synonym for ER cardinality categories.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ER: relationships are characterized by degree, cardinality, and optionality.
• OO: “HAS-A” often implies ownership/aggregation between objects.
• Statement claims ER categories are “also known as HAS-A.”

Concept / Approach:
While both ER and OO describe associations, ER cardinality is formal database modeling terminology. “HAS-A” does not convey minimum/maximum participation or intersection entities required for N:M. Therefore, equating them is misleading and imprecise in database design contexts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
List ER types: 1:1, 1:N, N:M. Note what each specifies: maximum participation counts for each side. Contrast with “HAS-A,” which lacks explicit cardinality and optionality semantics. Conclude that “HAS-A” is not a correct alias for ER cardinality types.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consult standard ER references: you will find cardinality/degree/optionality but not “HAS-A” as a formal synonym. OO references use “HAS-A” for aggregation/composition semantics.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Correct” or “composition-only” still mislabel ER categories. Notation choice (Crow’s Foot vs. Chen) does not redefine terminology.

Common Pitfalls:
Mixing OO vocabulary with ER modeling; assuming similar diagrams imply identical semantics and terms.

Final Answer:
Incorrect