SACM11 — "ArgumentResoning" Class and "Assertedinferce" Class

According to "ArgumentResoning" Class and "Assertedinferce" Class on the SACM 1.0 spec, ArgumentReasoning can be used to provide additional description or explanation of the asserted inference or challenge that connects one or more Claims (premises) to another Claim (conclusion). ArgumentReasoning elements are therefore >related to AssertedInferences and AssertedChallenges and The AssertedInference association class records the inference that a user declares to exist between one or more Assertion (premises) and another Assertion (conclusion). It seems that AsseretedInference and AssertedChallenges implies strategy(Parallelogram) on the GSN. On the other hand, in "B.2.1 Goal Structuring Notation(GSN) Examples" in Annex B Parallelogram corresponds to ArgumentReasoning. These are confusing. Which one is correct? Clarify the above.

The description of AssertedInference, AssertedChallenge and ArgumentReasoning is correct. The Annex B example is correct

AssertedInference in SACM relates to the SupportedBy relationship in GSN. In GSN, to explain and describe a (collection) of SupportedBy links from parent goals to child goals, GSN Strategy can be used. In SACM, to explain and describe an AssertedInference from child claims to parent claims, ArgumentReasoning can be used. ArgumentReasoning is analogous to GSN Strategy. AssertedInference is the relationship described by (potentially multiple) SupportedBy links in GSN.

The description of AssertedInference, AssertedChallenge and ArgumentReasoning is correct. The Annex B example is correct.

No change is required to the standard.