Structured Assurance Case Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Structured Assurance Case Metamodel — All Issues

  • Acronym: SACM
  • Issues Count: 5
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

Inconsistent naming of class

  • Key: SACM2-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19868
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Timothy Rowe)
  • Summary:

    The class is described as ArgumentElementCitation in the section title, but CitationElement in the body text. For consistency with InformationCitationElement, it is probably supposed to be ArgumentCitationElement

  • Reported: SACM 1.1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change.

    As part of the SACM 2.0 update we addressed all inconsistent class naming in SACM 1.0. The particular classes discussed in this issue are no longer in SACM.

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

Typo in reference to ISO/IEC 15026

  • Key: SACM2-81
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology ( Eric Grandry)
  • Summary:

    In Semantics sub-section, the text refers to ISO/IEC 15026, but it is written:
    "An AssuranceCase element represents assurance cases as defined in ISO/IEC 15206."
    It should be written:
    "An AssuranceCase element represents assurance cases as defined in ISO/IEC 15026."

  • Reported: SACM 1.1 — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    As part of the SACM 2.0 update the sub-section in question was rewritten and the typo referred to, that was present in SACM 1.1, was removed.

    As part of the SACM 2.0 update the sub-section in question was rewritten and the typo referred to, that was present in SACM 1.1, was removed.

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

Apparently spurious associations on class diagram

  • Key: SACM2-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19870
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Timothy Rowe)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.1 shows associations between ArgumentReasoning and AssertedInference, and between ArgumentReasoning and AssertedChallenge, which are not described in the text. Because these can be captured by the association between ArgumentReasoning and AssertedRelationship, I assume they are spurious

  • Reported: SACM 1.1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Spurious associations removed

    These spurious associations have been removed and are no longer present in SACM.

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

Superclass in text is inconsistent with diagram

  • Key: SACM2-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19867
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Timothy Rowe)
  • Summary:

    The superclass of ArgumentElement is shown as ModelElement in the text but as ArgumentationElement in figure 9.1 on page 27.

  • Reported: SACM 1.1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Diagram and text use same name.

    ArgumentAsset (the new name for ArgumentElement) now refers to the superclass as ArgumentationElement in both the diagram and text.

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

Reference to non-existent class

  • Key: SACM2-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19869
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Timothy Rowe)
  • Summary:

    The text states that the ArgumentReasoning class has a reference structure:Argument[0..1]

    There is no Argument class defined. This should presumably be structure:Argumentation[0..1], as shown in Figure 9.1

  • Reported: SACM 1.1 — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Typo has been removed

    This spurious typo has been removed and is no longer present in SACM.

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