Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| fxdemo:01-part:10-conceptual-traceability-model:10-8-traceability-boundaries [2026/06/29 14:38] – ↷ Page moved from fxdemo:01-part:11-conceptual-rules-and-constraints:10-8-traceability-boundaries to fxdemo:01-part:10-conceptual-traceability-model:10-8-traceability-boundaries owen | fxdemo:01-part:10-conceptual-traceability-model:10-8-traceability-boundaries [2026/07/18 12:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| [[fxdemo: | [[fxdemo: | ||
| - | Traceability has boundaries. The document set can preserve meaningful relationships without creating unnecessary administrative burden. | + | [[dido: |
| - | A traceability relationship can exist when it supports architecture review, implementation mapping, deployment verification, | + | A [[dido: |
| - | A traceability relationship can identify enough information to support review, including: | + | A [[dido: |
| * Source element | * Source element | ||
| * Target element | * Target element | ||
| * Relationship type | * Relationship type | ||
| - | * Part, profile, or artefact | + | * Part, profile, or artifact |
| * Purpose of the relationship | * Purpose of the relationship | ||
| - | * Evidence or review mechanism, where applicable | + | * [[dido: |
| + | |||
| + | [[dido: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP centeralign> | ||
| + | |||
| + | © 2026 Dido Solutions, Inc. and Jackrabbit Consulting, Inc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| - | Traceability cannot imply that all details belong in the conceptual architecture. Part 1 defines the conceptual traceability model. Later sections provide detailed traceability matrices, mappings, deployment references, and evidence records appropriate to their respective layers. | ||