SACM — Increased clarity needed

While clarity needs improvement throughout, the following are specific instances:
• An explanation is needed of how the two sets of provenance-related classes and event-related classes need to be clearly and cleanly related to each other and to other elements.
• The terms “role” and “rolebinding” need clear explanations..
• The word “role” appears to be used both casually and technically. Use it only in the latter way.
• Term “subject claim” is unnecessary and potentially confusing ­ why bother users with it.
• As introductory material, Figure 1 is unclear, for example “evidence observation” sounds like an observation done to obtain evidence.
• Meaning of “revoked” is unclear as generally nothing should be destroyed. Something might be excluded from assurance case (and maybe later brought back).

Chapter 12, page 49, replace sentence "So, an Assertion element represents a fact involving one or more
Objects" with "So, an Assertion element represents a fact involving one or more Objects bound to specific roles
associated with the fact type of the assertion. The concepts fact type, role, element is bound to a role are
defined in SBVR. In particular, a fact type is defined as a concept that is the meaning of a verb phrase that
involves one or more noun concepts and whose instances are all actualities. A role is defined as a noun
concept that corresponds to things based on their playing a part, assuming a function or being used in some
situation. Specifically, a fact type role characterizes its instances by their involvement in an actuality that is
an instance of a given fact type."
section 13.4.5 page 64, table entry for AtLocation replace word 'roles' with 'locations'
section 14.6.3, replace 'plays an important role" with "is important"
section 14.6.4. page 88, replace "plays an important role" into "is important"
section 14.7.1. page 89 replace "and therefore can play a role of a named container" into "acting as a named
container"
section 15.2.7 Stakeholder, subsection semantics, add to the end: "The fact type "stakeholder has role with
respect to evidence item" can be formally defined outside of the Evidence Metamodel and then referred to
for the purpose of constructing formal statements related to stakeholders."
13.4.5, page 64 replace text 'Revocation of an evidence element emphasizes that the evidence element is no
longer admissible for supporting argument" into
'Revocation of an evidence element means that the evidence element is no longer admissible for supporting
argument while it is still available e.g. as an item in an evidence repository. A revoked element may still
remain as the subject of assertions stating evidentiary support to some claims. Such relations may need to
be evaluated and explicitly negated based on the revocation event.'
Replace semantics subsection of the IsRevokedAt with:
IsRevokedAt element represents a property of the subject EvidenceElement object. IsRevokedAt element
represents the state of affairs that the subject has been revokes. IsRevokedAt element may be the subject of
additional properties describing further details about the revocation event.