You are required to read and agree to the below before accessing a full-text version of an article in the IDE article repository.

The full-text document you are about to access is subject to national and international copyright laws. In most cases (but not necessarily all) the consequence is that personal use is allowed given that the copyright owner is duly acknowledged and respected. All other use (typically) require an explicit permission (often in writing) by the copyright owner.

For the reports in this repository we specifically note that

  • the use of articles under IEEE copyright is governed by the IEEE copyright policy (available at http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/copyrightpolicy.html)
  • the use of articles under ACM copyright is governed by the ACM copyright policy (available at http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/)
  • technical reports and other articles issued by M‰lardalen University is free for personal use. For other use, the explicit consent of the authors is required
  • in other cases, please contact the copyright owner for detailed information

By accepting I agree to acknowledge and respect the rights of the copyright owner of the document I am about to access.

If you are in doubt, feel free to contact webmaster@ide.mdh.se

Preventing Omission of Key Evidence Fallacy in Process-based Argumentations


Fulltext:


Authors:

Faiz Ul Muram, Barbara Gallina, Laura Gomez Rodriguez

Research group:

Certifiable Evidences & Justification Engineering

Publication Type:

Conference/Workshop Paper

Venue:

11th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology

Publisher:

IEEE

DOI:

10.1109/QUATIC.2018.00019

Abstract

Process-based argumentations argue that a safety critical system has been developed in compliance with the development process defined in the standards and provide the evidence for certification of compliance. However, the process-based argumentations cannot ensure that the evidences are sufficient to support the claim. If the argumentations are insufficient (i.e., fallacious) they may result in a loss of confidence on system’s safety. It is thus crucial to prevent or detect fallacies in the process-based argumentations. Currently, argumentations review process to detect fallacies largely depends on the reviewers’ expertise, which is a labour-intensive and error prone task. This paper presents an approach that validates the process models (compliant with Process Engineering Metamodel 2.0), and prevent the occurrence of fallacy, specifically, omission of key evidence in processbased argumentations. If fallacies are detected in the process models, the approach develops the recommendations to resolve them; afterwards the process and/or safety engineers modify the process models based on the provided recommendations. Finally, the approach generates the safety argumentations (compliant with Structured Assurance Case Metamodel) from the modified process models by using model-driven engineering principles that are free from the fallacies. The applicability of the proposed approach is illustrated in the context of ECSS-E-ST-40C (Space engineering–Software) standard.

Bibtex

@inproceedings{Ul Muram5145,
author = {Faiz Ul Muram and Barbara Gallina and Laura Gomez Rodriguez},
title = { Preventing Omission of Key Evidence Fallacy in Process-based Argumentations},
month = {December},
year = {2018},
booktitle = {11th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology},
publisher = {IEEE},
url = {http://www.es.mdu.se/publications/5145-}
}