Issue 16514: Justification of Methods of Reasoning (sacm-rtf) Source: MITRE (Mr. Samuel Redwine, samredwine(at)verizon.net) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant 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? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 25, 2011: received issue Discussion: Action: check with TPK about what is mechanism for supporting warrants. Need to provide guidance to support use justification of ArgumentReasoning RESOLUTION: Need to ensure when describing AssertedInference that we include ArgumentReasoning (ARM) as possible target. This issue is related to the Argumentation Metamodel. It is deferred to the future RTF due to the lack of time to work on the resolution. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 25 Aug 2011 13:21:44 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Samuel T. Redwine, Jr. Company: Sam Redwine Consulting mailFrom: samredwine@ieee.org Notification: Yes Specification: Argumentation Metamodel (ARM) Section: June Day 2 Diagram FormalNumber: ptc/2010-08-36 Version: FTF - Beta 1 RevisionDate: August 2010 Page: All Title: Justification of Methods of Reasoning Nature: Revision Severity: Significant test: 3qw8 B1: Report Issue Description: .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?