mdh.sePublications
Change search
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
Preventing Omission of Key Evidence Fallacy in Process-based Argumentations
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6952-1053
Mälardalen University.
2018 (English)In: 2018 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (QUATIC), 2018, p. 65-73Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

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 process-based 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. p. 65-73
Keywords [en]
Process models, safety cases, process-based argumentation, argumentation fallacies, model transformation
National Category
Computer Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-42814DOI: 10.1109/QUATIC.2018.00019ISI: 000458690400009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85054809557OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-42814DiVA, id: diva2:1292457
Conference
2018 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
Available from: 2019-02-28 Created: 2019-02-28 Last updated: 2019-04-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

UL Muram, FaizGallina, Barbara

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
UL Muram, FaizGallina, BarbaraRodriguez, Laura Gomez
By organisation
Embedded SystemsMälardalen University
Computer Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 1 hits
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