Expert Assessment of Arguments: A Method and Its Experimental Evaluation
SAFECOMP '08 Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security
Comprehensive Architecture Evaluation and Management in Large Software-Systems
QoSA '08 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Quality of Software-Architectures: Models and Architectures
SAFECOMP'07 Proceedings of the 26th international conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security
Arguing for software quality in an IEC 62304 compliant development process
ISoLA'10 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Leveraging applications of formal methods, verification, and validation - Volume Part II
Yet another meta-model to specify non-functional properties
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quality Assurance for Service-Based Applications
Towards a model-driven infrastructure for runtime monitoring
SERENE'11 Proceedings of the Third international conference on Software engineering for resilient systems
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The Goal Structuring Notation (GSN)[1] facilitates a clear presentation of the argument structure in dependability cases for dependable systems. However, assessment of an argument structure with respect to validity, sufficiency and consistency of argumentation and the provided evidence still strongly depends on individual, tacit expert knowledge. We propose a 2-phase analysis method for argument structures: Firstly, syntactic completeness, consistency, and proper instantiation of argument patterns are examined using a UML profile for GSN and OCL constraints. For the second phase, we propose 2-dimensional quality models to assist the expert in explicitly judging on the conclusiveness of argumentation. A quality model explicitly represents the impact of facts on design activities and software-system's properties relevant for dependability. The impact value aggregates state-of-the-art knowledge and standard's recommendations. Missing, negative or conflicting impact indicates impairment of the argument either by revealing a gap in the line of arguments or incompatibilities or opposing principles between decisions or techniques in the process. We show first steps towards the integration of the analysis into model-based tool supported development.