Fact or Profile dim for indicators ?

I have a star schema with few (5 to 10) indicator fields(0 or 1 values) and we are debating what's the best place to place them. Fact or Junk dim ? IMO, it's easy to sum them up if it's in the fact table but if that junk dimension is going to be used in multiple stars then it's better to put in junk dim. Is this correct assumption ? I also think junk dim's should be pertained to a single star. Is this correct ? What is rule ofm thumb on this item ? Any input is appreiated.

Thanks

As these are attributes they belong in a dimension, you should only place a degenerate attribute in the fact table.

Keep to the dimensional form. A junk dimension is just as valid as any other dimension and may be used in other facts.

Thanks for the reply. So, usability in many facts is the key reason that these indicators need to be in the Junk dimension or anything else ? Reason for the question is that these are also kind of additive facts so why can't we keep them in the fact ? so, does kinbam says that all the indicators need to be in dimensions ?

First of all, the Indicators need to be supplemented with more meaning information. I user doesn't know what 1/0 means and a report isn't going to be very informative with counts of 1 and 0. Add columns for each indicator that have more meaning when appearing on a report.

The Indicators shouldn't be in the Fact because they aren't measures or dimension keys.

A junk dimension can pertain to any fact table that is appropriate. Say you are a bank and you have a junk dimension for accounts that hangs off you Account Fact. The same junk dimension can be applied to your teller or ATM transaction fact table.