Is this a mistake in the textbook? Fundamentals of Database Systems 7th ed

Aggregation is an abstraction concept for building composite objects from their
component objects. … the possibility of combining objects
that are related by a particular relationship instance into a higher-level aggregate
object. This is sometimes useful when the higher-level aggregate object is itself to be
related to another object. We call the relationship between the primitive objects and
their aggregate object IS-A-PART-OF; the inverse is called IS-A-COMPONENT-OF.
UML provides for all three types of aggregation.

Here in the last sentence "the inverse is called IS-A-COMPONENT-OF" is a mistake?. Are "IS-A-COMPONENT-OF" and "IS-A-PART-OF" the same thing? If so what should we call an inverse?