Structured Assurance Case Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Structured Assurance Case Metamodel — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: SACM
  • Issues Count: 54
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
SACM2_-9 Elements in all parts of SACM need to be considered as artifacts and appropriate context and support relationships captured. SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-8 Align with American English to support use of SACM by The Open Group SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-7 Simplification of ArtifactAssetRelationship SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-6 Simplify ArtifactElement and its sub-types SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-5 Alow AssertedRelationship to express if it is a counter relationship SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-4 Need to simplify internationalization support in Expressions. SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-3 Simplification of elements contained in packages SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-1 Need to simplify the citation classes of SACM SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-24 Need more consistency in packages, interfaces and binding SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-11 Need for the ability to group SACMElements SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-10 Better support for patterns is needed SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-2 SACM needs support for Internationalization SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2_-26 Address missing elements of first 12 issues and address style consistency SACM 2.0b2 SACM 2.0 Deferred closed
SACM2-30 Inconsistent naming of class SACM 1.1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-73 There is no compliance point for those that support/use the Terminology Package specified in SACM 2.0’s metamodel. SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-72 Model uses undefined ‘date’ type. SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-71 In the classes related to Citations, the terms Element and Asset are inconsistently used. SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-70 Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory. SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-69 Incorrect description of the Argumentation compliance point. SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-81 Typo in reference to ISO/IEC 15026 SACM 1.1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-68 The SACM 2.0 meta-model requires implementation of the Terminology Package in spite of the text of Chapter 2 on compliance points saying it is optional. SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-67 Inconsistent use of the word “Model” in describing the three compliance points SACM 2.0b1 SACM 2.0 Resolved closed
SACM2-23 Properties as Assertions ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-29 SBVR should be available in SACM for use wherever this would make sense SAEM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-26 Ownership needs improved representation SAEM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-17 Assurance Cases under development or Incomplete ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-28 Scope of availability of change management information SAEM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-18 Justification of Methods of Reasoning ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-19 Different Meanings of Different Variants/Versions of a Model Elements Need to be Labeled, e.g. for Claims ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-12 We are missing an SBVR vocabulary for ARM SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-21 Making Role Binding and SBVR more generally available ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-16 Property Inherence Hierarchy ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-20 Properties of Model Elements must be Distinguished from Properties of what they Represent ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-14 Integration Issue: Inconsistency in level of prescription in the models SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-13 Incorporate 11.2.2 SupportLevel (enumeration) (p52) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-22 Events should be able to be Associated with all Kinds of ModelElements ARM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-15 combined standard should include a vocabulary for talking about standards of proof SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-11 There is no support for patterning, which is found to be useful current practice. SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-5 prefixes in the SAEM 'Evidence.... SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-1 Add missing definitions to SBVR Vocabulary in Annex A SACM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-33 Apparently spurious associations on class diagram SACM 1.1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-32 Superclass in text is inconsistent with diagram SACM 1.1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-8 Issue: No approach to allowing Structured Expression of Claims within ARM SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-6 No method of handling confidence in the ARM SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-2 Integration Issue: Inconsistent approaches to handling counter argument and evidence SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-10 Integration Issue: Inconsistent terminology SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-9 Incorporate 11.5.3 Contributes (abstract) (p64) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-3 Page73 ,section 13.2, figure21 SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-27 EvidenceProperty inherit from Property SAEM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-4 Evidence evaluation attributes in SAEM overlap in purpose - e.g. insufficient distinction between Strength and ... SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-7 fundamental difference in modelling style of each metamodel SACM 1.0 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-31 Reference to non-existent class SACM 1.1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-25 Uncertainty characteristic for claims SAEM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
SACM2-24 Identifying nature of element contents SAEM 1.0b1 SACM 2.0 Closed; No Change closed

Issues Descriptions

Elements in all parts of SACM need to be considered as artifacts and appropriate context and support relationships captured.

  • Key: SACM2_-9
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    If all elements in Argumentation, Terminology, Artifact and AssuranceCase can be considered as artifacts the assertion that one or more artifact provide context for another artifact; and the assertion that one or more artifact support another artifact needs to be captured.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:41 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT

Align with American English to support use of SACM by The Open Group

  • Key: SACM2_-8
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Use “artifact” instead of “artefact” is needed to make incorporation of SACM into The Open Group standards more practical.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:21 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Simplification of ArtifactAssetRelationship

  • Key: SACM2_-7
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    ArtifactAssetRelationship can be simplified by removing all its sub-classes. The purpose of an ArtifactAssetRelationship can then be recorded by the property +property:Property in the ArtifactAsset class.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:19 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Simplify ArtifactElement and its sub-types

  • Key: SACM2_-6
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In SACM, all elements in the Argumentation package, Artifact package, Terminology package, and AssuranceCase package are considered to be Artifacts.

    Consequently ArtifactElement needs to be moved to the Base classes and be a direct sub-type of ModelElement. All elements in other packages then will sub-type ArtifactElement.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:19 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Alow AssertedRelationship to express if it is a counter relationship

  • Key: SACM2_-5
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In Argumentation package, AssertedRelationship should directly express if it is a counter relationship.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:18 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to simplify internationalization support in Expressions.

  • Key: SACM2_-4
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    There is currently no direct mechanism to support internationalization in SACM content.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:16 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT

Simplification of elements contained in packages

  • Key: SACM2_-3
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In packages (e.g. ArgumentPackage, TerminologyPackage), atomic references are too complicated.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:16 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need to simplify the citation classes of SACM

  • Key: SACM2_-1
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Citations can be simplified by removing them from Argumentataion, Artifact and Terminology classes and replacing them with +isCitation and +citedElement properties in SACMElement in the Base classes.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:13 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need more consistency in packages, interfaces and binding

  • Key: SACM2_-24
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    There are unnecessary differences between the Assurance Case, Terminology, Argument, and Artifact package definitions, interfaces, and bindings.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 20:03 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need for the ability to group SACMElements

  • Key: SACM2_-11
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    To support multiple stakeholder views and purposes a mechanism for associating SACMElements is needed.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Better support for patterns is needed

  • Key: SACM2_-10
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    The ability to create patterns (e.g. AssuranceCase patterns, ArgumentPackage patterns, etc) that contain only abstract SACMElements is needed and the patterns should be re-usable.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:42 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT

SACM needs support for Internationalization

  • Key: SACM2_-2
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Need to add internationalization of the languages used so that elements can be described using multiple languages

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10 GMT
  • Attachments:

Address missing elements of first 12 issues and address style consistency

  • Key: SACM2_-26
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    There are several areas where the work packages for addressing issues 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, or 12 missed changes, additions, and deletions to support internationalization and package simplification. Additionally, there are several style issues in the text that need to be made consistent.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b2 — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:13 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    deferred

  • Updated: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:09 GMT
  • Attachments:

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

There is no compliance point for those that support/use the Terminology Package specified in SACM 2.0’s metamodel.

  • Key: SACM2-73
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In making support for the Terminology Package optional a compliance point for those that want to support the Terminology Package was mistakenly left out.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a Terminology Package Compliance point

    In the first sentence of section 2.1 change “three” to “four”; in bulleted list in section 2.1 add a fourth bulleted item “Terminology Model”; and add a new section “2.5 Terminology Model compliance point”, with the text “Software that conforms to the specification at the Terminology Model compliance point shall be able to import and export XMI documents that conform with the SACM XML Schema produced by applying XMI rules to the normative MOF metamodel defined in this entire specification. The top object of the Terminology package as a unit of interchange shall be the SACM::TerminologyPackage element.

    The Conformance clause identifies with clauses of the specification are mandatory (or conditionally mandatory) and which are optional for an implementation to claim conformance to the specification.”

    See pdf “Adding Terminology Compliance Point.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

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

Model uses undefined ‘date’ type.

  • Key: SACM2-72
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Currently, the Artefact, and Activity classes use the type ‘date’ for some of their attributes, and the ‘date’ attribute is missing from the model and diagrams for ActivityEvent, despite appearing in the text of the specification.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:03 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change date to string

    In section 12.5.2 (Attributes of Artefact class) change “date: Date” to “date: String”. In section 12.5.4 (Attributes of ArtefactEvent class) add “date: String”. In section 12.5.6 (Attributes of Activity class) change “startTime: Date” to “startTime: String” and “endTime: Date” to “endTime: String”.

    See pdf “Model uses undefined date type.pdf” for markup of proposed changes to Figure 2 and 12.1

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

In the classes related to Citations, the terms Element and Asset are inconsistently used.

  • Key: SACM2-71
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    The 31 uses of the class name “ArtefactElementCitation” and the 10 uses of the class name “ArgumentElementCitation” are inconsistent with the 20 uses of the class name “ArtefactAssetCitation” and 7 uses of the class name “ArgumentAssetCitation”.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Align terminology to use '...AssetCitation(s)'

    To be consistent across the SACM 2.0 metamodel the “ArtefactElementCitation” and “ArgumentElementCitation” uses should be changed to “ArtefactAssetCitation” and “ArgumentAssetCitation” respectively, the class “ArtefactElementCitation” in figure 6 should be changed to “ArtefactAssetCitation”, and the 2 uses of the term “citedElement” should be changed to “citedAsset”.

    See the pdf “terms Element and Asset are inconsistently used in citation-related classes.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

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

Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory.

  • Key: SACM2-70
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory. Also, some text in section 2.4 should be moved to precede all the compliance point descriptions.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make it clear that the Assurance Case compliance point is mandatory.

    The sentence, “This compliance point is mandatory.” should be added at the beginning of the first paragraph of Section 2.4. The second paragraph should be moved to immediate follow the bullet point list of compliance points at the beginning of Section 2.

    See the pdf “AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

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

Incorrect description of the Argumentation compliance point.

  • Key: SACM2-69
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In the second paragraph of Section 2.1 there is currently the text, “The ‘ArtefactElementCitation’ class shall not be used.” This is incorrect. The ArtefactElementCitation class is still necessary for the use of Argumentation compliance point.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct erroneous text about 'ArtefactElementCitation’ class

    Omit the sentence. “The ‘ArtefactElementCitation’ class shall not be used.”

    See the pdf “Incorrect description of the Argumentation compliance point.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

  • 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

The SACM 2.0 meta-model requires implementation of the Terminology Package in spite of the text of Chapter 2 on compliance points saying it is optional.

  • Key: SACM2-68
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Because all the significant classes of the argumentation and artefact package inherit from ModelElement, and ModelElement must use the Description class to provide content (e.g. the text of a Claim), and Descriptions must (given the current multiplicity) contain an Expression object, both argumentation and artefact packages must use the terminology package.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix model to allow Terminology Package to be optional as intended

    The multiplicity from TaggedValue to Expression and UtilityElement to Expression must be changed from ‘1’ to ‘0..1’ to allow this to be optional. In addition, a new attribute called “sExpression: String” (referring to ‘simple expression’) should be added to UtilityElement, and an additional attribute called “sKey: String” (referring to ‘simple Key’) should be added to TaggedValue.

    In Section 8.4 (The description of UtilityElement) the following text needs to be added:

    “Attributes
    sExpression: String – the text that describes the value of the UtilityElement”

    and

    “Constraints
    If an Expression class is associated (through the expression association) with UtilityElement then sExpression should be null”

    In Section 8.8 (The description of TaggedValue) the following text needs to be added to the current ‘Attributes’ section:

    “sKey: Expression – the text that describes the key of the tagged value”

    and the following text to the existing ‘Constraints’ section:

    “If an Expression class is associated (through the key association) with TaggedValue then sKey should be null”

    See the pdf “The SACM 2.0 meta-model requires implementation of the Terminology Package.pdf” for markup of proposed changes to figures and “Terminology Package Implementation-8.4 and 8.8.pdf” for text changes.

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

Inconsistent use of the word “Model” in describing the three compliance points

  • Key: SACM2-67
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Of the three compliance points, one is referred to with the word “Model” while the other two are not. All three should consistently use this word in describing the compliance points. Additionally, two times “model” is used instead of “Model”.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change section 2 to be consistent in use of term "model"

    In the bulleted list in section 2.1; the title of section 2.2; the first sentence of the first and second paragraphs of section 2.2; section 2.3; the title of section 2.4; and the first sentence of the first paragraph replace the text “Argumentation” and “Assurance Case” with “Argumentation Model” and “Assurance Case Model” respectively and replace “Artefact model” with “Artefact Model”.

    See pdf “Use of word Model in Chapter 2.pdf” for markup of proposed changes.

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

Properties as Assertions

  • Key: SACM2-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16505
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    The property elements of various kinds contain assertions concerning proper values for various properties (or attributes). Should they not therefore inherit from Assertion? This includes tagged values unless these are used to tag kinds of “annotations” instead of using general Annotation elements.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    While we have maintained a simple property model for Artefacts in SACM 2.0, and given more generally the opportunity to document TaggedValues on any model element, SACM 2 agrees with this comment and recognised that substantive assertions about artefacts / evidence should be documented as Claims. Communities of interest have the option of standardising particular structured expressions and vocabulary for claims using the Terminology package.

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

SBVR should be available in SACM for use wherever this would make sense

  • Key: SACM2-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16313
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    SBVR should be available in SACM for use wherever this would make sense. This includes in (ARM) claims and ReasoningElements and in SAEM many assertions particularly claims and possible rationales. Wherever narrative or prose, or mathematical expressions are allowed, why not also allow SBVR (and some places graphics or even other media also) unless strong reasons exist for doing otherwise?

  • Reported: SAEM 1.0b1 — Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    The underlying intent of this issue has been fundamental in shaping the redefinition of SACM 2.0. The authors agreed with the need to provide a means of establishing structured expressions and vocabulary for both the Artefact and Argumentation parts of SACM 2.0. These structured expressions can be standardized for communities of practice through common terminology packages. We did not use SBVR and the fact model approach of SBVR as the means of doing this because it was considered too heavyweight for our purposes.

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

Ownership needs improved representation

  • Key: SACM2-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16310
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    The following aspects need to be accommodated:
    Owning, creating, and approving can be done concurrently by multiple entities and different (sets of) entities over time.

    Ownership can be divided unequally among owners and fractions could need to be recorded.

    Ownership can have aspects, for example IP rights versus physical object ­ I own the book, but not its copyright.

  • Reported: SAEM 1.0b1 — Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    SACM 2 allows explicit representation of Participants in the Artefact model. This allows the representation of stakeholders. It also now provides a very flexible means of documenting multiple relationships (using ParticipantRoleRelationship) between Artefacts and Participants.

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

Assurance Cases under development or Incomplete

  • Key: SACM2-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16289
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    SACM standard must accommodate assurance cases under development as this is expected to be a common usage ­ transferring assurance cases among their developers or maintainers. This includes those incomplete.

    In addition to incompleteness, decisions may yet to be concerning option options including the type of certain relations ­ e.g. does an inference relation challenge or not. As the relative distinctions are not always known, particularly early in assurance cases construction, which currently abstract classes should be concrete classes should be reviewed and changed as required to accommodate this.

    Recording explicit options yet to be decided among (and optionally their effects) could be useful (and also relevant to patterns).

    More elements similar in name to the UnknownSubject might be included if required to meet this need.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Fri, 27 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    Incomplete models, as always, can be exchanged. In addition, SACM 2 has added a new attribute to the base ModelElement class called isAbstract. This allows any part of an SACM model to marked as a placeholder for later instantiation according to optionally provided ImplementationConstraints. Status / lifecycle information about whether a modelElement is, for example, ‘Agreed / Confirmed / Rejected’, could be added to any model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package).

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

Scope of availability of change management information

  • Key: SACM2-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16281
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    Timing or change management information needs to be able to be associated with anything as anything can change over time. This includes for example with Attributes (and any Properties). In addition, how to best handle changes and change information over time needs to be reviewed throughout SACM.

    The version and change management related information ­ although often kept in a CM system ­ needs to be exchangeable along with an assurance case. At least one exchange standard for CM information exists, TECHAMERICA EIA-836B: Configuration Management Data Exchange and Interoperability, publication date: Mar 1, 2010. It is reportedly both ANSI and DoD approved. (http://engineers.ihs.com/document/abstract/BMVKACAAAAAAAAAA) One option is for this to be appropriately included by reference.

    Versioning should be available for everything. Identification and “HasVersion” attribute should be associated with a near root element, or this availability should be achieved in some other fashion. The standard should not restrict its availability and smallness of possible granularity of elements it may be applied to.

  • Reported: SAEM 1.0b1 — Thu, 26 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This level of fine grained versioning is outside the scope of SACM.

    Versioning has been maintained as an attribute for the Artefact class, because in SACM’s management of evidence we are responsible for ensuring the complete and correct management of the artefact inventory. However, versioning of all of the other model elements lies outside the scope of the exchange model.

    Comment – there must be other fine-grained model management / versioning standards) Versioning information could be added to every model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). However, because there are many ways to maintain version information, we decided to not standardize this.

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

Justification of Methods of Reasoning

  • Key: SACM2-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16514
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    How might and/or should the justification for an ArgumentReasoning element’s method(s) of argumentation be represented in SACM? Several options or possibilities exist. This justification might be a supplied by a Claim, a DescriptiveAssertion, or Assumption connected by an AssertedInference link or an AssertedConext link in turn potentionally supported by InformationElement, EvidenceElement, or Artifact. More generally justification for its method(s) of argumentation can be in the form of an assurance case. On the other hand might it be supplied by an AssertedContextLink to an Artifact or even simply a citation?

    What is the designers approach? Should these options be restricted or others used ­ particularly for the link between the ArgumentReasoning element and justification of its methods? Should some approaches be preferred?

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    ArgumentReasoning is used in SACM 2.0 to describe AssertedRelations (e.g. AssertedInferences). These AssertedRelations can be justified with further supporting Assertions. ArgumentReasoning can optionally be fully documented as a structured argument with an associated ArgumentPackage. If this is done then, of course, it could be more fully justified.

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

Different Meanings of Different Variants/Versions of a Model Elements Need to be Labeled, e.g. for Claims

  • Key: SACM2-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16511
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    Claims and other items can have versions that simultaneously exist but have different meanings. For example, what a Claim might represent includes:
    • Required values
    • Planned values to be achieved
    • Supported (established, justified) values
    Two or more of these can be relevant at the same time.
    A suggestion has been made that SBVR be used (within associated properties?) to make this distinction. This would require that SBVR be available for these contents. Use of a TaggedValue is another possibility. Regardless of what mechanism is used, some standardization should be included for the key meanings.

    Placing this distinction within the contents of claim true-false statement might be more awkward and not make it as readily handled by tools as having it reside in a property.

    In any case, what is standardized needs to have precise definitions or distinguishable among multiple definitions (or explicitly made usage/implementation dependent?) as subtle variations in meaning are possible. Note that for some assertions differences might be entirely in the value for confidence.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    SACM 2 has added a new attribute to the base ModelElement class called isAbstract. This allows any part of an SACM model to marked as a placeholder for later instantiation according to optionally provided ImplementationConstraints. Status / lifecycle information about whether a modelElement is, for example, ‘Agreed / Confirmed / Rejected’, could also be added to any model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package).

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

We are missing an SBVR vocabulary for ARM

  • Key: SACM2-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16864
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    We are missing an SBVR vocabulary for ARM (authors view - this is work someone else
    to do, maybe close/postpone)

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    We are no longer using SBVR.

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

Making Role Binding and SBVR more generally available

  • Key: SACM2-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16509
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    SBVR should be available for use within element contents everywhere unless strong, explicitly recorded reason exists for excluding it.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    The underlying intent of this issue has been fundamental in shaping the redefinition of SACM 2.0. The authors agreed with the need to provide a means of establishing structured expressions and vocabulary for both the Artefact and Argumentation parts of SACM 2.0. These structured expressions can be standardized for communities of practice through common terminology packages. We decided to not use SBVR and the fact model approach of SBVR as the means of doing this because it was considered too heavyweight for our purposes.

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

Property Inherence Hierarchy

  • Key: SACM2-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16507
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    A simple, natural and appropriate set of properties would have Property (abstract?) inheriting from Assertion (or less preferably ModelElement) and having ModelElementProperty, RepesentedObjectProperty, Event, and Timing inheriting from it (Property) and appropriately associated. Artifacts and DomainObjects would use RepesentedObjectProperty’s. The two classes of properties are needed to allow properties associated with a model element and those associated with what it represents to be distinguished. Likewise ModelElementEvent and RepesentedObjectEvent inherit from Event. What type of event timing an instance is relevant to will be clear from what it is associated with. CM events and properties for both model elements and what they represent could be treated within this approach.

    Alternately, a usable set of properties could have Property inheriting from ModelElement and having ModelElementProperty, ArtifactProperty, DomainObjectProperty, Event, and Timing inheriting from it and appropriately associated. The three classes of properties are needed to allow properties associated with a model element and what it represents to be distinguished. Likewise ModelElementEvent, ArtifactEvent, and DomainObjectEvent inherit from Event. What type of event timing is relevant to will be clear from what it is associated with. CM events and properties could be treated likewise.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In SACM 2.0 we have a clear ArtefactProperty class to capture properties of an Artefact. This, for example, is separate from the ability to attach UtilityElements to an Model Element (that can be used to capture Model Element Properties, e.g. using TaggedValue). Standardised vocabularies and expressions for domain properties can be captured using a Terminology package (which supports inheritance).

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

Properties of Model Elements must be Distinguished from Properties of what they Represent

  • Key: SACM2-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16506
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    Obviously, properties that apply to Model Elements must be distinguishable from Properties of what they represent. Both these kinds of properties appear in SACM models. The issues titled “Property Inherence Hierarchy” states a way of doing this.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In SACM 2.0 we have a clear ArtefactProperty class to capture properties of an Artefact. This, for example, is separate from the ability to attach UtilityElements to an Model Element (that can be used to capture Model Element Properties, e.g. using TaggedValue). Standardised vocabularies and expressions for domain properties can be captured using a Terminology package (which supports inheritance).

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

Integration Issue: Inconsistency in level of prescription in the models

  • Key: SACM2-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16841
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Integration Issue: Inconsistency in level of prescription in the models (e.g. raised by Jeremy). E.g. arm does not prescribe what kinds of claims, instead SAEM has more presciption of the subtypes of

    claims.

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    As part of the SACM 2.0 update we removed much of the prescription of domain-specific content in the artefact model of SACM. In particular, we avoided prescription where there was no industry consensus on the ways in which artefacts should be described. Instead, SACM 2.0 focuses on providing a standardised exchange model format within which description can be customized (see Description element of ModelElement) for communities of interest using user-defined vocabularies and structured expressions.

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

Incorporate 11.2.2 SupportLevel (enumeration) (p52) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel

  • Key: SACM2-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16781
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Incorporate 11.2.2 SupportLevel (enumeration) (p52) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    SupportLevel enumeration has been removed. In redefining SACM 2 it was recognized that there was no established approach (accepted by even a small group of industry) as to how to represent confidence and uncertainty on SACM artefact and argumentation elements. Consequently, SACM 2 deliberately pulled back from standardising in these areas. Confidence information could be added to any model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). In addition, SACM 2 recognises that substantiative assertions about artefacts / evidence should be documented as Claims. It also recognizes the potential (which may be particularly relevant when discussing confidence) to attach metaclaims to any Assertion (see metaClaim association on Assertion).

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

Events should be able to be Associated with all Kinds of ModelElements

  • Key: SACM2-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16510
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    Not just exhibits have events that affect them or otherwise relate to them. This is also relavent to what the elements represent.

    An event might be associated with more than one element
    For example, one bug fix that simultaneously change several code exhibits/artifacts.

  • Reported: ARM 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In SACM 2.0 ArtefactEvents are optionally recorded as part of an Artefact’s description. They are intended to describe events relating to the artefact rather than events relating to the Artefact model element.

    Versioning of all of the other model elements lies outside the scope of the exchange model. Versioning information could be added to every model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). However, because there are many ways to maintain version information, we decided to not standardize this.

    The relationship of an Activity (e.g. fixing a bug) to multiple Artefacts can be recorded in SACM 2.0 as a many-to-one ArtefactActivityRelationship.

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

combined standard should include a vocabulary for talking about standards of proof

  • Key: SACM2-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16861
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    combined standard should include a vocabulary for talking about standards of proof

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In redefining SACM 2 it was recognized that there was no established approach (accepted by even a small group of industry) as to how to represent confidence and uncertainty on SACM artefact and argumentation elements. Consequently, SACM 2 deliberately pulled back from standardising in these areas. Confidence information could be added to any model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). In addition, SACM 2 recognises that substantiative assertions about artefacts / evidence should be documented as Claims. It also recognizes the potential (which may be particularly relevant when discussing confidence) to attach metaclaims to any Assertion (see metaClaim association on Assertion).

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

There is no support for patterning, which is found to be useful current practice.

  • Key: SACM2-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16853
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    There is no support for patterning, which is found to be useful current practice.

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    SACM 2 has added a new attribute to the base ModelElement class called isAbstract. This allows any part of an SACM model to marked as a placeholder for later instantiation according to optionally provided ImplementationConstraints. This allows us to represent Argumentation and Artefact patterns as models. The full documentation of these patterns lies outside the scope of SACM, but was recognized as being possible using SPMS referring to these SACM models.

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

prefixes in the SAEM 'Evidence....

  • Key: SACM2-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16849
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    The name 'Evidence' implies a certain association between some Information / some artefact and some claim. In ARM it was recognised that information can be used both to define context and as

    supporting evidence to an assertion. This suggests that many of the prefixes in the SAEM 'Evidence....' should be changed to allow them to more generally refer to Information (and specialise to Evidence if

    required)

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In SACM 2.0 we have changed the use of the term ‘Evidence’ to become ‘Artefact’ to avoid this problem.

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

Add missing definitions to SBVR Vocabulary in Annex A

  • Key: SACM2-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17335
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    The SBVR vocabulary for evidence in Annex A is missing several definitions.

  • Reported: SACM 1.0b1 — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    SACM 2.0 is no longer using the SBVR approach.

  • 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

Issue: No approach to allowing Structured Expression of Claims within ARM

  • Key: SACM2-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Issue: No approach to allowing Structured Expression of Claims within ARM

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    The underlying intent of this issue has been fundamental in shaping the redefinition of SACM 2.0. The authors agreed with the need to provide a means of establishing structured expressions and vocabulary for both the Artefact and Argumentation parts of SACM 2.0. These structured expressions can be standardized for communities of practice through common terminology packages. We no longer make use of SBVR and the fact model approach of SBVR as the means of doing this because it was considered too heavyweight for our purposes.

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

No method of handling confidence in the ARM

  • Key: SACM2-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16843
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    No method of handling confidence in the ARM

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In redefining SACM 2 it was recognized that there was no established approach (accepted by even a small group of industry) as to how to represent confidence and uncertainty on SACM artefact and argumentation elements. Consequently, SACM 2 deliberately pulled back from standardising in these areas. Confidence information could be added to any model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). In addition, SACM 2 recognises that substantiative assertions about artefacts / evidence should be documented as Claims. It also recognizes the potential (which may be particularly relevant when discussing confidence) to attach metaclaims to any Assertion (see metaClaim association on Assertion).

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

Integration Issue: Inconsistent approaches to handling counter argument and evidence

  • Key: SACM2-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16842
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Integration Issue: Inconsistent approaches to handling counter argument and evidence. Both standards have evaluation mechanisms (e.g. refuting, rebutting mechanisms)

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    There were a number of examples where evidence relationships were considered to be more appropriately represented as being between Claims regarding Artefacts. These relationships between Claims are now represented in SACM 2.0 only using the AssertedRelations of the argumentation parts of SACM.

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

Integration Issue: Inconsistent terminology

  • Key: SACM2-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16837
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Integration Issue: Inconsistent terminology

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    As part of the SACM 2.0 update we addressed all inconsistent terminology that was present in SACM 1.0. This was one of the primary drivers of the update was to address this.

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

Incorporate 11.5.3 Contributes (abstract) (p64) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel

  • Key: SACM2-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16807
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Incorporate 11.5.3 Contributes (abstract) (p64) in a coherent way into merged SACM metamodel

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    Contributes is an example of a relationship that was considered to be more appropriately represented as being between Claims regarding Artefacts. These relationships between Claims are now represented in SACM 2.0 only using the AssertedRelations of the argumentation parts of SACM.

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

Page73 ,section 13.2, figure21

  • Key: SACM2-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16712
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Some of the concepts being captured in the model here overlap quite strongly with those of
    Configuration Management, and would probably best left to standards in that domain rather
    than creating a conceptual overlap here.

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    Versioning has been maintained as an attribute for the Artefact class, because in SACM’s management of evidence we are responsible for ensuring the complete and correct description of the artefact inventory. However, versioning of all of the other model elements lies outside the scope of the exchange model. Versioning information could be added to every model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). However, because there are many ways to maintain version information, we decided to not standardize this.

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

EvidenceProperty inherit from Property

  • Key: SACM2-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16882
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    With integration EvidenceProperty inherit from Property as should all properties - directly or indirectly.

  • Reported: SAEM 1.0b1 — Fri, 9 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Removed multiple inheritence and different definition path.

    The only occurrence of Properties within SACM 2.0 is with the class ArtefactProperty, which inherits from ArtefactAsset. There are no longer any other (inconsistent) definitions of properties with different inheritance.

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

Evidence evaluation attributes in SAEM overlap in purpose - e.g. insufficient distinction between Strength and ...

  • Key: SACM2-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16854
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    Evidence evaluation attributes in SAEM overlap in purpose - e.g. insufficient distinction between Strength and ...

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    As part of the SACM 2.0 update we removed much of the prescription of domain-specific content in the artefact model of SACM. In particular, we avoided prescription where there was no industry consensus on the ways in which artefacts should be described. This has removed these overlapping elements. Instead, SACM 2.0 focuses on providing a standardised exchange model format within which description can be customized (see Description element of ModelElement) for communities of interest using user-defined vocabularies and structured expressions.

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

fundamental difference in modelling style of each metamodel

  • Key: SACM2-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16850
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adelard LLP ( Luke Emmet)
  • Summary:

    There is a fundamental difference in how modelling style of each metamodel. For example SAEM has a more "fact oriented" (nouns and verbs) approach which has a simpler MOF implementation. ARM has

    classes instead.

  • Reported: SACM 1.0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    We have consolidated and standardized the model approach and style to ensure consistency between the Argumentation and Artefact elements of SACM.

  • 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

Uncertainty characteristic for claims

  • Key: SACM2-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16287
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    From the viewpoint of compatibility with ISO/IEC 15026, the most important issue is that SACM contain an "Uncertainty" characteristic or attribute, a key aspect of 15026-2, in order to facilitate use of SACM with ISO/IEC 15026 conformant assurance cases. These would be useful throughout SACM as attributes of assertions or claims (not relations).

    Current usage means a need exists for several data type options ­ not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    Data Types
    • Probability true: 0-1.00
    • Type I error: 0-1.00
    • Type 2 error: 0-1.00
    • Enumeration: None, low, medium, large, unknown
    • Standard deviation: real number
    One might also want to include a data type with customizable meaning (values: 1-100) that would parallel the data type for “Strength” in present draft if this is retained.

    This attribute element is associated with claims (assertions) and not with relations. Current SAEM draft defines characteristics ­ such as “Strength,” and “Confidence” ­ of evidence relations between an EvidenceItem (e.g. exhibit) and a DominAssertion. These relate to uncertainty but are associated with a relation and not with a DomainAssertion (claim). Note that the draft of SAEM states these are one-to-one relations unlike the many-to-one inferential relations in ARM.

  • Reported: SAEM 1.0b1 — Fri, 27 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by harmonization to create SACM 2.0.

    In redefining SACM 2 it was recognized that there was no established approach (accepted by even a small group of industry) as to how to represent confidence and uncertainty on SACM artefact and argumentation elements. Consequently, SACM 2 deliberately pulled back from standardising in these areas. Confidence information could be added to any model element (if required) using TaggedValue (which could use a community consensus vocabulary established using the Terminology package). In addition, SACM 2 recognises that substantiative assertions about artefacts / evidence should be documented as Claims. It also recognizes the potential (which may be particularly relevant when discussing confidence) to attach metaclaims to any Assertion (see metaClaim association on Assertion).

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

Identifying nature of element contents

  • Key: SACM2-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16883
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MITRE ( Samuel Redwine)
  • Summary:

    2. What is needed to be known by tool or human is information required to establish the meaning of its content (interpret it) for this the notation/means used to express contents needs to be identified. An associated property could do this ­ and with more power/flexibility as any notation could be identified. Among other things, one should not presume that multiple tool vendors would never chose to support a (mathematically) formal notation other than SBVR. The use of different element types to identify nature of contents as “informal” or “structured” would be overkill. Rather, rename/combine “Consistency,” “ IsExpressed InLanguage”or other element to NotationUsed and provide appropriate attributes.

  • Reported: SAEM 1.0b1 — Fri, 9 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SACM 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This level of prescription of description is no longer included in SACM 2.0.

    This level of prescription of description in the Artefact model (i.e. referring to the form of expression of artefact contents) is no longer included in SACM 2.0. However, a community could standardize on an expected set of ArtefactProperties, description of these properties and vocabulary using a common Terminology Package.

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