 |
nominalize_n-1.png (21,983 bytes) |
|
|
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. |
- Anonymous
