Instances in which one would insert an Artifact within an Artifact?

Mary Miller (87●9) | asked Nov 14 '19, 11:59 a.m.

Good day,

I am playing with certain features that we typically would not have used before. I ran across this idea of inserting an artifact within another artifact.

The only reason why I could think this would be useful is the following:

You insert Artifact B into Artifact A.
You open Artifact B in another tab.
You copy some portion of Artifact B into Artifact A.
You finish and remove Artifact B from Artifact A.

Is there some other reason that inserting an Artifact within an Artifact is useful?

Thanks again!

Mary

Accepted answer

permanent link

Davyd Norris (1.7k●1●15) | answered Nov 14 '19, 4:39 p.m.

Here are a few reason I have done it in the past:

- inserting a diagram into a paragraph of text, where the diagram is drawn in DNG and its parts are also linked to other artefacts

- inserting quotes from other documents where you only want to maintain one source

- inserting lists of reference documents, in particular standards. You leave them collapsed so you just see titles but then you have a link to the source in your reference list

- going the other way and manually marking up content to turn it into inserted artefacts. This is especially useful in two situations a) meeting or workshop notes, where you want to preserve the note as written but then dissect it into artefacts and b) tables, where it's useful for contents of the table to be traced as individual artefacts

Mary Miller selected this answer as the correct answer

Comments

Mary Miller commented Nov 15 '19, 2:02 p.m.

Okay, thank you! This is helpful!

One other answer

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

permanent link

Nic Plum (21●5) | answered Nov 19 '19, 11:52 a.m.

Or where you insert a table into an artifact and then want the table values to be identifiable artifacts in their own right for traceability reasons.

There are, however, problems

the behaviour of holding the mouse over the inserted attributed causes a small tool set to be shown which can obscure the value in the table cell
visibility of the traceability in reports / views [the relationship of the artifact to the inserted one needs to be known]

Comments

Davyd Norris commented Nov 19 '19, 5:18 p.m.

Two comments:

- then don't hover your mouse over it :-)

- inserting an artefact into another does not create any sort of link by default. You can select to do so if you want but I never do - I always add links manually if it's appropriate. In particular for table contents I use parent/child links to a top level artefact to indicate decomposition. Most often the top level artefact is the container for the table itself as long as it has a name or text that makes sense in list views

Nic Plum commented Nov 20 '19, 2:27 a.m.

It is very difficult to edit something without hovering over the value at some point.

Inserting an artefact into another must create a relationship between the parent and the child element (in just the same way that there is a relationship between a module and an artefact). It might not be an explicit traceability link created by the user but the relationship must be exploitable so that analysis can be done.

The trouble is that there is no explicit model declared against which queries can be planned - it seems to rely on prior knowledge, empirical discovery or the like.

It's all about the answers!

Related questions

Instances in which one would insert an Artifact within an Artifact?

Accepted answer

One other answer

Your answer