(unknown charset) Re: [SystemSafety] EASA Notice of Proposed Amendment 2014-13

From: (unknown charset) 田口研治 < >
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:03:58 +0900


Just for your information.

Yoshiki Kinoshita of Kanagawa Uni (He was then at AIST) is one of the co-editors of ISO 15026-2.



Kenji Taguchi Ph.D (Computer Science)

Invited Senior Researcher

Co-chair of OMG SysA PTF

System Life-Cycle Research Group
Research Institute for Secure Systems (RISEC) National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)

Nakoji 3-11-46, Amagasaki, Hyogo 661-0974, Japan Tel: +81-6-6494-8051 Fax: +81-6-6494-8073 URL: http://staff.aist.go.jp/kenji.taguchi/index.html

2014-07-22 0:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin_at_xxxxxx
> Because EASA talks about safety/assurance cases, cites Toulmin and then uses its own conception, I
> thought I'd look up the international standard on assurance cases, ISO/IEC 15026 Part 2.
> It's 10pp long, including 2pp of Bibliography. The Bibliography includes a lot of ISO and IEC
> standards, a bunch of "Ministry of Defence" standards, without indicating which they might mean
> (answer: the UK), a couple of references to Altran UK's SafeSec project, including only URLs which
> no longer work (hint to the wise: grandfather your URLs when you revamp your WWW site! Back twenty
> years ago when we first taught people about WWW design this was de rigeur), a reference to
> Greenwell, Knight and Pease's taxonomy of fallacies (in ISSC 2006), and to Tim Kelly's diss.
> Nothing to Toulmin, Parsons, or anyone in the argumentation community.
> It's not bad, though. I'm somewhat unsure as to what a "justification" is; it seems to sit in
> between a claim and an assumption. It is said to be "a reason for the choice of a claim": isn't
> there always just one valid such reason, namely that the claim is required to validate the argument?
> The "blurb" is almost two pages long, leaving about five and a half pages for substance. It does
> better than EASA NPA 2014-13. Assurance cases consist of claims, arguments, evidence, justifications
> and assumptions (whereas NPA 2014-13 leaves the last two out) and it sort-of specifies the relations
> between them.
> Since it is an international standard on something the EASA NPA 2014-13 requires, namely assurance
> cases, one wonders why it was not cited.
> Does anyone know who was on the committee which wrote 15026-2?
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Jul 22 2014 - 07:04:20 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST