BMMF2 — Section: 8.4

An assessment judges an influencer. But there are four categories of assessments: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The name of the association--judges--is awkward when the assessment is an opportunity, or one of the categories. I suspect this is the typical case; we will see a lot more opportunities and weaknesses than we see assessments that are not one of the more specific categories. Would you ever say that an opportunity judges an influencer? Instead a more natural term for the association is "is judgment of".

In the BMM as published, "Assessment" is an objectified ternary fact type with roles played by Influencer, Means and End. The connection between Assessment and Influencer is not named.
The proposed resolution is:
· [Resolution of 10114] In the overview UML diagram in Ch 7 and Figure 8.13 in Ch 8, represent Assessment as a class with binary associations with Influencer, End and Means (as well as Potential Impact).
· Name the association between Assessment and Influencer as "Assessment is judgment of Influencer" (one to many), in the naming conventions agreed for Associations in the UML model [Issue 10090]
· In the Concepts Catalog (Ch 9) add a fact type "Assessment is judgment of Influencer" with a constraint that each assessment must be a judgment of at least one influencer.