View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0000817 | CaseTalk Modeler | Validation | public | 2015-12-11 14:05 | 2022-01-10 20:40 |
Reporter | BCP Software | Assigned To | BCP Software | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Target Version | 9.0 | Fixed in Version | 8.15 | ||
Summary | 0000817: Split FactType with 1 UC and more than 2 roles | ||||
Description | Facts which are properly created according to the N-1 rule, may still contain invalid modeling. Every FactType with more than 2 roles, and a single UC (non overlapping with others) over more than 1 role, is candidate to be nominalized. Therefor the roles under the UC should be split into a seperate ObjectType. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
CaseTalk Edition | |||||
related to | 0000461 | assigned | BCP Software | CaseTalk Modeler | Split OTFT into two |
|
|
Question: The new fco-im book, mentions on page 162 a violation of the N-1 Rule. Among the examples is "Employee on Project for Department". The N-1 rule violation is related to the UC6. However if the UC 4 is properly nominalised, there would be no need for this violation to be mentioned. Therefor the question arises: Should we nominalise role 37+38 into "Project for Department", or consider this N-1 rule ineffective since it is in effect a binary fact, combining "Employee" and "Project for Department"? |
|
Besides the discussion for checking this, a generic functionality could be to nominalize a group of selected roles (as long as they "match"). - A group of roles within the same facttype may be selected for nominalisation - A group of roles in multiple facttypes, should match playedbyot's, and than could be nominalised. |
|
Split Fact Type is now available from the menu. Precondition is that the verbalisation requires the roles under the UC to be adjacent. | |
Closing automatically, stayed too long in resolved state. Feel free to re-open with additional information if you think the issue is not resolved. | |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2015-12-11 14:05 | BCP Software | New Issue | |
2015-12-11 14:05 | BCP Software | Status | new => assigned |
2015-12-11 14:05 | BCP Software | Assigned To | => BCP Software |
2015-12-11 17:57 | BCP Software | File Added: nominalize_n-1.png | |
2015-12-11 18:24 | BCP Software | Description Updated | |
2015-12-11 18:33 | BCP Software | Note Added: 0000488 | |
2016-01-20 12:59 | BCP Software | Category | Validation => Well Formednes Rules |
2016-01-20 13:00 | BCP Software | Category | Well Formednes Rules => Model Validation |
2016-02-22 15:25 | BCP Software | Note Added: 0000525 | |
2016-02-23 16:54 | BCP Software | Relationship added | related to 0000461 |
2016-10-24 17:49 | BCP Software | Status | assigned => resolved |
2016-10-24 17:49 | BCP Software | Resolution | open => fixed |
2016-10-24 17:49 | BCP Software | Fixed in Version | => 8.15 |
2016-10-24 17:49 | BCP Software | Note Added: 0000674 | |
2020-04-19 09:26 | BCP Software | Category | Model Validation => Validation |
2022-01-10 20:40 | BCP Software | Note Added: 0002837 | |
2022-01-10 20:40 | BCP Software | Status | resolved => closed |