Structured Assurance Case Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Structured Assurance Case Metamodel — All Issues

  • Acronym: SACM
  • Issues Count: 7
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

There is no compliance point for those that support/use the Terminology Package specified in SACM 2.0’s metamodel.

  • Key: SACM2-73
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In making support for the Terminology Package optional a compliance point for those that want to support the Terminology Package was mistakenly left out.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a Terminology Package Compliance point

    In the first sentence of section 2.1 change “three” to “four”; in bulleted list in section 2.1 add a fourth bulleted item “Terminology Model”; and add a new section “2.5 Terminology Model compliance point”, with the text “Software that conforms to the specification at the Terminology Model compliance point shall be able to import and export XMI documents that conform with the SACM XML Schema produced by applying XMI rules to the normative MOF metamodel defined in this entire specification. The top object of the Terminology package as a unit of interchange shall be the SACM::TerminologyPackage element.

    The Conformance clause identifies with clauses of the specification are mandatory (or conditionally mandatory) and which are optional for an implementation to claim conformance to the specification.”

    See pdf “Adding Terminology Compliance Point.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

In the classes related to Citations, the terms Element and Asset are inconsistently used.

  • Key: SACM2-71
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    The 31 uses of the class name “ArtefactElementCitation” and the 10 uses of the class name “ArgumentElementCitation” are inconsistent with the 20 uses of the class name “ArtefactAssetCitation” and 7 uses of the class name “ArgumentAssetCitation”.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Align terminology to use '...AssetCitation(s)'

    To be consistent across the SACM 2.0 metamodel the “ArtefactElementCitation” and “ArgumentElementCitation” uses should be changed to “ArtefactAssetCitation” and “ArgumentAssetCitation” respectively, the class “ArtefactElementCitation” in figure 6 should be changed to “ArtefactAssetCitation”, and the 2 uses of the term “citedElement” should be changed to “citedAsset”.

    See the pdf “terms Element and Asset are inconsistently used in citation-related classes.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT

Model uses undefined ‘date’ type.

  • Key: SACM2-72
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Currently, the Artefact, and Activity classes use the type ‘date’ for some of their attributes, and the ‘date’ attribute is missing from the model and diagrams for ActivityEvent, despite appearing in the text of the specification.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:03 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change date to string

    In section 12.5.2 (Attributes of Artefact class) change “date: Date” to “date: String”. In section 12.5.4 (Attributes of ArtefactEvent class) add “date: String”. In section 12.5.6 (Attributes of Activity class) change “startTime: Date” to “startTime: String” and “endTime: Date” to “endTime: String”.

    See pdf “Model uses undefined date type.pdf” for markup of proposed changes to Figure 2 and 12.1

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory.

  • Key: SACM2-70
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory. Also, some text in section 2.4 should be moved to precede all the compliance point descriptions.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it clear that the Assurance Case compliance point is mandatory.

    The sentence, “This compliance point is mandatory.” should be added at the beginning of the first paragraph of Section 2.4. The second paragraph should be moved to immediate follow the bullet point list of compliance points at the beginning of Section 2.

    See the pdf “AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Incorrect description of the Argumentation compliance point.

  • Key: SACM2-69
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In the second paragraph of Section 2.1 there is currently the text, “The ‘ArtefactElementCitation’ class shall not be used.” This is incorrect. The ArtefactElementCitation class is still necessary for the use of Argumentation compliance point.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct erroneous text about 'ArtefactElementCitation’ class

    Omit the sentence. “The ‘ArtefactElementCitation’ class shall not be used.”

    See the pdf “Incorrect description of the Argumentation compliance point.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT

Inconsistent use of the word “Model” in describing the three compliance points

  • Key: SACM2-67
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Of the three compliance points, one is referred to with the word “Model” while the other two are not. All three should consistently use this word in describing the compliance points. Additionally, two times “model” is used instead of “Model”.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change section 2 to be consistent in use of term "model"

    In the bulleted list in section 2.1; the title of section 2.2; the first sentence of the first and second paragraphs of section 2.2; section 2.3; the title of section 2.4; and the first sentence of the first paragraph replace the text “Argumentation” and “Assurance Case” with “Argumentation Model” and “Assurance Case Model” respectively and replace “Artefact model” with “Artefact Model”.

    See pdf “Use of word Model in Chapter 2.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

The SACM 2.0 meta-model requires implementation of the Terminology Package in spite of the text of Chapter 2 on compliance points saying it is optional.

  • Key: SACM2-68
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Because all the significant classes of the argumentation and artefact package inherit from ModelElement, and ModelElement must use the Description class to provide content (e.g. the text of a Claim), and Descriptions must (given the current multiplicity) contain an Expression object, both argumentation and artefact packages must use the terminology package.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix model to allow Terminology Package to be optional as intended

    The multiplicity from TaggedValue to Expression and UtilityElement to Expression must be changed from ‘1’ to ‘0..1’ to allow this to be optional. In addition, a new attribute called “sExpression: String” (referring to ‘simple expression’) should be added to UtilityElement, and an additional attribute called “sKey: String” (referring to ‘simple Key’) should be added to TaggedValue.

    In Section 8.4 (The description of UtilityElement) the following text needs to be added:

    “Attributes
    sExpression: String – the text that describes the value of the UtilityElement”

    and

    “Constraints
    If an Expression class is associated (through the expression association) with UtilityElement then sExpression should be null”

    In Section 8.8 (The description of TaggedValue) the following text needs to be added to the current ‘Attributes’ section:

    “sKey: Expression – the text that describes the key of the tagged value”

    and the following text to the existing ‘Constraints’ section:

    “If an Expression class is associated (through the key association) with TaggedValue then sKey should be null”

    See the pdf “The SACM 2.0 meta-model requires implementation of the Terminology Package.pdf” for markup of proposed changes to figures and “Terminology Package Implementation-8.4 and 8.8.pdf” for text changes.

  • Updated: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:05 GMT