It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

DNG - Why is 'Satisfies' Link Type a Custom Link Type

Sean F (1.3k244157) | asked Aug 09 '18, 9:49 a.m.
edited Aug 09 '18, 9:53 a.m.
In requirements management the most common link type is usually 'Satisfies/Satisfied By'

Why does DNG not have this link type as a default link type?

There are many default link types defined and rationale's given for each one.

It seems odd that the most commonly understood link type in Requirements Management practice has to be created manually. Is there a reason for this?

The 'Satisfy' type is even described in the link types page even though it does not exist by default.

Are most practitioners creating the custom Satisfies link type or are they using one of the other default link types for linking say System Requirements to Stakeholder Requirements?

Is there any cost (or benefit) associated with using a custom link type versus a standard link type?

One answer

permanent link
Sean F (1.3k244157) | answered Aug 22 '18, 12:29 p.m.
edited Aug 22 '18, 12:54 p.m.
Looking a bit further at this there are many default link types present in a new DNG project created with no template:-

Affected By
Artifact Term Reference
Derives Architecture Element
Elaborated By
Implemented By
Refines Architecture Element
Satisfy Architecture Element
Specified By
Trace Architecture Element
Tracked By
Validated By

but only a few present as available when you try to create a link against a new simple text artifact type such as 'System Requirement'. The available types are:-


These five types are also the only link types available when choosing 'preferred link types' for the newly created artifact type definition.

I know several in the full list are reserved for particular activities like glossary, RQM, RTC links etc. but it is not clear why so many are missing when you try to create a link against a new artifact type instance.

Also one of the ones that is available is 'embed's which I was expecting would be a reserved link type (for the action of embedding one artifact inside another) so the fact that it is available for manual instantiation is a further puzzle.

In general it seems like it would be best to create your own link types when devising a schema.The only problem then being that many of the intuitive link type names have already been taken by the long list of system link types and these types are not available for use by a new artifact definition.

Anybody have any thoughts on using only custom link types as a preferred approach to schema definition?

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.

Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.