mdh.sePublications
1011121314151613 of 30
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Comparative Analysis of Argumentation Languages in the Context of Safety Case Development
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering.
2019 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year)), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

The safety case creation has become an explicit requirement in most of the safety-critical domains to ensure the safety of a system or an application. In the process of developing a safety case, the foremost requirement is choosing an efficient argumentation language which fulfills all the functionalities needed to develop a safety case.

 

In general, there are text-based argumentation notations and graphics-based argumentation notations to represent a safety case. In this paper we are comparing and analyzing the graphics-based argumentation notations like Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), Claims Arguments and Evidence (CAE), Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM, the standardized modelling language to describe the safety case), NOR-STA Services (software platform which support graphics-based notations), Resolute (which is both language and tool that supports graphics-based notations) and Dynamic Safety Cases (special type of safety case which supports graphics-based notations such as GSN).

 

In this thesis, we compared the argumentation notations with respect to different aspects in the context of safety case development. We present our findings like the types of stakeholders gaining benefits from different types of notations, the list of domains where these types of notations are applicable. We also presented the major advantages and disadvantages of using different argumentation notations considering certain features like understandability, standardization, consistency, maintenance, traceability, and assessment in the context of safety case development.

 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. , p. 73
Keywords [en]
safety case argumentation languages, safety case argumentation notations, documentation of safety cases
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-45349OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-45349DiVA, id: diva2:1356090
Subject / course
Computer Science
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2019-10-23 Created: 2019-09-30 Last updated: 2019-10-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1931 kB)23 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1931 kBChecksum SHA-512
10229cf693967e0f184e03334b39e217fc348cc3e60c8b82da77e70e873585587961368c65c7edb0614db85bf881c67aa0f05873fad9213b130b05269bff6104
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 23 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 165 hits
1011121314151613 of 30
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf