Preventing Omission of Key Evidence Fallacy in Process-Based Argumentations

ATTEST: Automating the review and update of assurance case arguments

“…The Method Plugins are containers of process-related information, while a Configuration is a selection of sub-sets of library content to be shown in the browsing perspective. EPF Composer was used for modeling standards requirements, processes, and for basic compliance management in [4,20]. For this reason, four method plugins are created.…”

“…An assurance case consists of process-and product-based arguments. The former shows from indirect evidence that processes conform to relevant standards [4], while the latter provides direct evidence that the residual risks of a product are acceptably low [5,6]. The work presented in this paper utilizes the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) [7] for modeling and visualizing assurance cases.…”

Recommender systems in model-driven engineering

“…These approaches differ either in the applied technique to compute and rank the repairs, or in the application domain. In particular, IntellEdit [93] ranks quick fix solutions to model inconsistency problems according to the least-change principle; PAR-MOREL [11,53] determines the model repair actions based on the user preferences and on the experience gained from repairing under different personalisation settings; the diagram predicate framework (DPF) [108] and the approach by Nassar et al [91] implement repairs as transformation rules; DiaGen [82] represents models as hypergraphs and uses hypergraph patches to produce recommendations for repairing models; Refacola [130] uses constraint-based rules; BPMoQualAssess [60] provides guidelines to improve the actual value of quality metrics for business process models; B-repair [24] is specific to the B formal specification language and ranks the suggested repairs based on their estimated quality; Revision [98] tracks model inconsistencies to the editing action originating them in the model history and fixes this action to obtain a consistent model; MDSafe-Cer [87] detects missing information for supporting key evidence in process-based argumentations, and recommends how to resolve such deviations; ASIMOV [38] assists in the co-evolution of models and meta-models by proposing model co-evolution actions that a metamodeller must have defined previously; and Anguel et al [8] also tackle the co-evolution problem, but they automatically fix resolvable changes and recommend coevolution actions to deal with non-resolvable changes.…”

“…6 Tooling dimensions for RSs in MDE (even though they may have the potential to become tool-independent). Most tool-supported RSs in MDE have been developed either as full software systems or as extensions of the following existing systems: the ATL development environment [117][118][119], some data mashup tools [27], the Generic Eclipse Modeling System (GEMS) [92], the Ecore Diagram Editor [5,6], DPF [108], DiaGen [82], Fujaba [40], AutoFOCUS3 [16], the AMASS platform [87], the AMOR model versioning system [21], Kermeta [86], the Generic Modeling Environment (GME) [99], Sparx Enterprise Architect [72,73] and the meta-modelling tool AToM 3 [126,127]. All these approaches built as complete systems or system extensions are tool-dependent (84.31%).…”

“…Some rule-based RSs target behavioural models. MDSafe-Cer [87] recommends how to resolve flaws of safety argumentations attached to process models. For this purpose, it first identifies the problematic elements, and then uses rules to provide advices to resolve the deviations.…”