dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-005

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-005 [2026/07/21 14:55] – created owendido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-005 [2026/07/21 15:16] (current) – owen
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 Each FX logical Node SHALL identify its FX logical Node Roles, responsibilities, Runtime Plane participation, Communication Endpoints, information structures, governance constraints, traceability relationships, and evidence expectations. Each FX logical Node SHALL identify its FX logical Node Roles, responsibilities, Runtime Plane participation, Communication Endpoints, information structures, governance constraints, traceability relationships, and evidence expectations.
- 
-The FX Demo Logical Profile SHALL distinguish FX logical Nodes from processes, services, containers, pods, virtual machines, serverless functions, threads, tasks, libraries, subroutines, RPC endpoints, REST resources, DDS participants, and deployment artefacts. 
  
 ===== Source ===== ===== Source =====
Line 15: Line 13:
 ===== Rationale ===== ===== Rationale =====
  
-A logical Node is an architectural construct rather than an implementation construct. Defining the architectural characteristics of each logical Node while explicitly distinguishing logical Nodes from implementation artefacts preserves platform independence and prevents architectural concepts from being confused with deployment technologies.+Each FX logical Node must be defined with sufficient architectural detail to support consistent interpretation, implementation, governance, and verification. Identifying the Node Roles, responsibilities, Runtime Plane participation, Communication Endpoints, information structures, governance constraints, traceability relationships, and evidence expectations provides a complete architectural specification for each logical Node while remaining independent of implementation technologies. 
 + 
 +A consistent definition of these architectural characteristics enables logical Nodes to be reviewed, governed, traced, and specialized without ambiguity and provides the foundation for subsequent Implementation Profiles and deployment models.
  
 ===== Applies To ===== ===== Applies To =====
  
-This requirement applies to every FX logical Node defined within the FX Demo Logical Profile.+This requirement applies to every FX logical Node defined by the FX Demo Logical Profile.
  
 It applies specifically to: It applies specifically to:
  
   * logical Node specifications;   * logical Node specifications;
-  * Node Role definitions; +  * FX logical Node Roles; 
-  * Runtime Plane assignments;+  * logical responsibilities; 
 +  * Runtime Plane participation;
   * Communication Endpoint definitions;   * Communication Endpoint definitions;
   * logical information structures;   * logical information structures;
-  * governance documentation; and +  * governance constraints; 
-  * architectural reviews.+  * traceability relationships; and 
 +  * evidence expectations.
  
 ===== Verification ===== ===== Verification =====
  
-Verification SHALL confirm that every FX logical Node includes the required architectural characteristics and remains independent of implementation technologies.+Verification SHALL confirm that each FX logical Node identifies the required architectural characteristics.
  
 Verification activities should include review checks confirming that: Verification activities should include review checks confirming that:
  
-  * Node Roles are identified; +  * one or more logical Node Roles are identified; 
-  * responsibilities are documented; +  * logical responsibilities are documented; 
-  * Runtime Plane participation is defined; +  * Runtime Plane participation is identified; 
-  * Communication Endpoints are identified; +  * Communication Endpoints are defined; 
-  * logical information structures are defined; +  * logical information structures are identified; 
-  * governance and traceability relationships are documented; +  * governance constraints are documented; 
-  * evidence expectations are documented; and +  * traceability relationships are defined; and 
-  * logical Nodes are not described as implementation artefacts.+  * evidence expectations are specified.
  
 ===== Traceability ===== ===== Traceability =====
  
-This requirement establishes complete architectural definitions for FX logical Nodes while preserving separation between logical architecture and implementation.+This requirement supports the complete architectural specification of each FX logical Node within the FX Demo Logical Profile and provides the information required for governance, traceability, implementation planning, and evidence generation.
  
 Related requirement identifiers: Related requirement identifiers:
Line 55: Line 57:
   * [[dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-003]]   * [[dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-003]]
   * [[dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-004]]   * [[dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-004]]
 +  * [[dido:99_annexes:annex-d-requirements:part-03:p3-req-17-3-006]]
  
 Related source section: Related source section:
  • dido/99_annexes/annex-d-requirements/part-03/p3-req-17-3-005.1784670943.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2026/07/21 14:55
  • by owen