Advertisement

Qualitative analysis of dependability argument structure

  • Mark A. Sujan
  • Shamus P. Smith
  • Michael D. Harrison

Keywords

Argument Structure Flight Level Safety Case Support Pattern Diverse Evidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Adelard (2005) The assurance and safety case environment — ASCE. http://www.adelard.co.uk/software/asce/Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Eurocontrol (2001a) EUR RSVM programme: Functional hazard assessment. Working Draft 1.0, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Eurocontrol (2001b) EUR RVSM programme: The EUR RVSM Pre-Implementation Safety Case. Version 2.0Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Eurocontrol (2001c) Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory Requirement 4: Risk Assessment and Mitigation in ATM. Version 1.0Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Eurocontrol (2004) Air Navigation System Assessment Methodology. Version 2.0Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Govier T (1988) A practical study of arguments. Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Harms-Ringdahl L (2003) Investigation of barriers and safety functions related to accidents, Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference ESREL 2003, Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hollnagel E (1999) Accidents and Barriers. In: Hoc J-M, Millot P, Hollnagel E, Cacciabue PC (eds) Proceedings of Lex Valenciennes, Volume 28, Presses Universitaires de Valenciennes, pp. 175–182Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kelly TP (1999) Arguing Safety — A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, England.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kelly TP, McDermid JA (2001) A Systematic Approach to Safety Case Maintenance, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, volume 71, Elsevier, pp 271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Smith SP, Harrison MD (2005) Measuring Reuse in Hazard Analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, volume 89, Elsevier, pp 93–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Smith SP, Harrison MD, Schupp BA (2004) How explicit are the barriers to failure in safety arguments? In: Heisel M, Liggesmeyer P, Wittmann S (Eds), Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP’04), Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 3219 Springer, pp 325–337Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of arguments, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    UK Ministry of Defence (2004). Interim Def-Stan 00-56: Safety Management Requirements for Defence SystemsGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Weaver R, Fenn J, Kelly T (2003) A pragmatic approach to reasoning about the assurance of safety arguments. In Proceedings 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Sujan
    • 1
  • Shamus P. Smith
    • 2
  • Michael D. Harrison
    • 3
  1. 1.University of YorkYork
  2. 2.University of DurhamDurham
  3. 3.University of Newcastle upon TyneNewcastle upon Tyne

Personalised recommendations