SACM — Incorporate 7.2.7 DomainObject (abstract) (p19) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel

Incorporate 7.2.7 DomainObject (abstract) (p19) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel

All references are against document ptc/2012-04-04
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in header of table at page 15. (1 occurence)
Rename element DomainObject into FormalObject at diagram Evidence Elements (page 35)
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in section 10.1.7 page 38. (6 occurences)
Change superclass of FormalObject to "FormalElement" (page 38)
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in section 10.1.8 page 38. (1 occurence)
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in section 11.1.2 page 43. (2 occurences)
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in section 12.1.1 page 50. (1 occurence)
Rename element DomainObject into FormalObject at diagram Formal Objects (page 50)
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in section 12.1.1 page 51. (1 occurence)
Rename element DomainObject into FormalObject at diagram Formal Objects (page 53)
Change text "DomainObject" into "FormalObject" in associations for RoleBinding section 12.1.3 page 52.
(2 occurences)
Change sentence (page 52) from:
From the formal logic perspective, SACM separates DomainObject from
DomainAssertion. As a consequence, this limits the possibility to represent assertions
about assertions.
into
From the formal logic perspective, SACM distinguishes objects from assertions. As a
consequence, in order to represent a formal assertion about other assertions the later must
be objectified, i.e. represented as a FormalObject that refers to the original assertion using
the element ObjectifiedAssertion.
Rename chapter 12 title from "Fact Model" into "Formal Statements"
Change first sentence from the introduction to chapter 12, on page 49 from: The Facts Model defines Evidence Metamodel elements for representing the elements of
meaning involved in interpretation and evaluation of evidence, and specifically, required
for precisely representing assertions and claims. These fine-grained evidence elements
represent individual assertions based on some pre-defined conceptual model.
into
Formal Statements provide the mechanism for representing the elements of meaning
involved in the processes of interpretation and evaluation of evidence, and specifically,
that are required for precisely representing assertions and claims.
Change sentence from the introduction to chapter 12, on page 49 from:
The two fundamental classes of the fact model are Object and Assertion. An Object is an
object of significance, about which information needs to be known or held. Usually an
Object corresponds to an Exhibit. Exhibit element emphasized the physical object (an
SBVR thing element) while an Object emphasized the associated element of meaning. An
Assertion is a relationship taken as an element of claim that has a distinct, separate
existence, a self-contained piece of information that can be referenced as a unit. In the
scope of SBVR, such units of information are called facts, hence the name fact model.
into
The two fundamental classes of the Formal Statements are FormalObject and
FormalAssertion. A FormalObject is an object of significance, about which information
needs to be known or held. Usually a FormalObject corresponds to an Exhibit where the
Exhibit element emphasizes the physical object (an instance of the SBVR 'Thing'
concept) while a FormalObject emphasizes the associated element of meaning. (an
instance of the SBVR 'Meaning' concept). A FormalAssertion is a relationship between
evidence elements taken as a new assertion/claim that has a distinct, separate existence; a
self-contained piece of information that can be referenced as a unit. In the scope of
SBVR, such units of information are called facts.
change last part of the paragraph section 12, on page 49 from:
So, an Assertion element represents a fact involving one or more Objects. A RoleBinding
element represents an association, linkage, or connection between Objects within the fact
that describes their role within the fact. RoleBinding represents some semantic
association between entities of evidence information.
Fact model elements correspond to some external ontology or vocabulary. Therefore in
the SACM Evidence Metamodel, the superclasses of Object and Assertion are called
DomainObject and DomainAssertion respectedly as these elements are part of the
conceptual model of the Domain for which the assurance case is being developed.
The SACM Facts package is aligned with the OMG SBVR specification, in particular
Object can be linked to SBVR IndividualConcept and Assertion can be linked to SBVR
fact.
This alignment is important since the Evidence Metamodel can be viewed as a standard
vocabulary related to descriptions of evidence. SBVR rules can be written using this
vocabulary to formally describe further properties of evidence information. Such
vocabulary is presented in Appendix 1.
The SACM Evidence Metamodel is also aligned with the RDF. Object and Assertion can
be represented as RDF resources, and RoleBinding - as RDF triples.
into So, a FormalAssertion element represents an assertion involving one or more
FormalObjects. A RoleBinding element represents an association, linkage, or connection
between the FormalObjects that describes their role within the assertion.
Formal Statements are based on some pre-defined conceptual model related to the area
for which the assurance case is developed. Such conceptual model can be formally
represented as an external ontology or vocabulary. In particular the SACM Evidence
Metamodel allows linking an Object element to an SBVR IndividualConcept or SBVR
noun concept element and the Assertion element to SBVR fact type element
The Object element is aligned with the SBVR IndividualConcept or the SBVR noun
concept while the Assertion element is aligned with the SBVR fact. type. Further, the
entire SACM Evidence Metamodel is aligned with the OMG SBVR specification, in such
a way that it describes a standard vocabulary related to descriptions of evidence. SBVR
rules can be written using this vocabulary to formally describe further properties of
evidence. The full SBVR vocabulary for evidence is presented as a non-normative Annex
A.
Change the first sentence of section 12.1 on page 49 from
The FormalAssertions class diagram focuses at the Assertion as the key element of the
fact model underlying the Assurance Case.
into
The FormalAssertions class diagram focuses at the Assertion as the key element of the
formal statements underlying the Assurance Case.
Rename the word "Fact Model" into "Formal Statements" on Figure 10.1 on page 33.
Change "Fact Model" into "Formal Statements" in the list of Evidence Metamodel parts on page 33:
Change paragraph on page 33 from
The Exhibits part defines the coarse-grained evidence, provided in the form of
documents and sometimes other exhibits. The Exhibits part also defines the properties of
exhibits and documents. The Fact Model part defines the fine-grained assertions,
provided in the form of individual propositions. These propositions use an external
vocabulary of the domain for which an argument is being provided. The Fact Model part
defines a subset of an SBVR fact model in the form of atomic formulations based on fact
types with role bindings to individual concepts. SBVR is not used directly because of
subtle semantic differences between fact models in linguistic models (SBVR), conceptual
models and “candidate fact models” involved in evidence collection and evaluation. Fact
Model elements are used to build the conceptual model underlying the entire assurance
case. Properties part defines provenance and timing of the evidence items and
evaluations. Evidence Evaluation part provides means to establish exact nature of the
evidentiary support that document confer on the domain assertions. The Administration
part defines a Project element which organizes individual evidence items and evaluations
into a unit of exchange. The Administrative part also provides several means for
managing evidence collections projects.
into
The Exhibits part defines the key evidence elements in the form of documents and other
exhibits. The Exhibits part also defines the statements that describe the properties of
exhibits and documents. The Formal Statements part defines the fine-grained elements
of meaning involved in the interpretation of evidence and claims, in the form of individual asserted propositions. These propositions use an external vocabulary of the
domain for which the assurance case is being developed. The Formal Statements part
defines a subset of an SBVR fact model in the form of atomic formulations based on fact
types with role bindings to individual concepts. SBVR is not used directly because of
subtle semantic differences between fact models in linguistic models (SBVR), conceptual
models and “asserted propositions” involved in evidence collection and evaluation.
Formal Statement elements are used to build the conceptual model underlying the entire
assurance case. Properties part defines statements related to custody, provenance and
timing of the evidence items and their evaluations. Evidence Evaluation part defines
statements that describe the exact nature of the evidentiary support that a document or
other exhibit may confer on the assurance case claims. The Administration part defines
the Evidence Container element which organizes individual evidence items and their
evaluations into a unit of exchange. The Administrative part also defines statements
related to managing evidence collection projects.
Change text on page 53 from
FormalObject is an element of meaning. FormalObject shall be used in fact model
underlying the assurance case to represent subjects of assertions, in particular when more
than one assertion refers to the same subject.
into
FormalObject is an element of meaning. FormalObject shall be used in formal statements
related to the assurance case to represent subjects of assertions, in particular when more
than one assertion refers to the same subject.
Change text "fact model" into "formal statements" on page 54 (4 occurrences)
Change the definition of the "Assertion in Annex A, page 109, from
A proposition that represents segments of the fact model related to the situation for which
the body of evidence is collected
into
A proposition that is related to the area for which the assurance case is developed
Change description of Assertion in Annex A, page 110 from
A formal assertion is a proposition that describes a state of affairs for which the evidence
is collected. This proposition uses the vocabulary that is imported from the semantic
community that is involved in the subject field within which the evidence is collected.
Formal assertions for evidence collection represent (alleged) facts as part of the fact
model corresponding to the body of evidence. Fact model is an SBVR term.
into
A formal assertion is a proposition that describes a state of affairs for which the assurance
case is developed. This proposition uses the vocabulary that is imported from the
semantic community involved in the area within which the evidence is collected. Formal
assertions for evidence collection represent the asserted facts as part of the fact model
corresponding to the body of evidence. Fact model is an SBVR term.
Move section 12.2 Formal Objects in front of section 12.1 Formal Assertions.
Change Figure 12.2 Formal Objects Class Diagram as follows: <<diagram on p 60 of ptc/2012-06-04>> Modifications to this diagram accumulate resolutions to related issues.