How can I specify a sub-clause/sub-section/sub-paragraph for an outgoing link? The definitions tutorial video clearly explains how to create an outgoing link to a definition in an article, but often people want to be more specific, especially if the main clause/section/whatever is long and complex. So instead of saying “has the meaning set forth in article 3” I’d like to specify “has the meaning set forth in paragraph 3.1”. Is this possible?
Due to the fact that cross-referencing in ClauseBase always works using a link or crosstag, that means that the specific sub-paragraph you wish to reference should be implemented as a separate clause with a link or crosstag.
Typically you would then create a title clause (i.e. a clause that only contains the content title), with the subparagraphs implemented as separate clauses, adding links/crosstags as necessary.
While this is a little more work when implementing the clauses, it gives additional flexibility: you can add separate “enabled?” conditions to each of those clauses, or in the Design Q&A mode you could use these clauses in individual change sets (e.g. disable or insert clause change sets) as relevant. Finally, these individual subparagraphs can now also be used separately in future templates.
Thanks Robert. Just to make sure I understand the idea: first create a new library clause with the clause title only (this is different from “New clause title” ?), then create separate clause library files for each of the subclauses, then pull them all together in a document?
Yes, that’s right Chuck!
The easiest way to do this is to first insert the clause title in your document, and then the sub-paragraphs below it as subclauses.
Creating a library clause with only a content title is indeed somewhat different from the “New clause title” button in Assemble Document. The first option creates a library clause (only title in this case) that can be re-used later on in a different document. The second option (i.e. using the “New clause title” button) creates an ad hoc clause with only a content title. The mechanics are similar, but this latter clause cannot be re-used as it is only an ad hoc clause.
Got it, and the more granular approach (separate clause files for each sub-clause) makes sense as a more flexible and future-proofable approach.