Legacy Issue Number: 16691
Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
Page 12, Figure 2, Page 15, section 8.2.6 and page 16, section 8.2.9: In Figure 2, the attributes “toBeSupported” and “assumed” appear in the same class (Claim), but in the subsequent sections “toBeSupported” appears in ReasoningElement (a super-class of Claim). It seems that these two attributes are related: nothing should be both “assumed” and “to be supported”. This suggests that either:
a. The “toBeSupported” attribute should be removed on the grounds that any Claim that is not assumed should have support, and if it doesn’t, then it is yet to be supported; or
b. A single attribute should be used to represent three states: assumed, supported or not-
yet-supported (alternatively: assumed, needs-no-support and needs-support); or
c. An invariant should be present to state the constraining relationship between the two attributes described above.
Note that “toBeSupported” could be construed as a process issue, and therefore better treated as a TaggedValue to make the model less prescriptive.
Note also that the “toBeSupported” attribute should be constrained to be false in the EvidenceAssertion class, as well as, possibly, the “assumed” attribute
Reported: SACM 1.0b1 — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — SACM 1.0b2
This issue to be resolved by a constraint on the Claim class. See resolution for 17347
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT