Computer-assisted safety argument review – a dialectics approach

References

• Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS 2000). Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., & Wooldridge, M. (2003). Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 347–376. doi: 10.1093/logcom/13.3.347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (1998). Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on legal knowledge based systems (JURIX) (pp. 5–20). Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Institute (GNI).
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, P.G., & Bloomfield, R.E. (1995). The SHIP safety case – A combination of system and software methods. Proceedings of the 14th IFAC conference on safety and reliability of software-based systems (pp. 12–15), Bruges.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, P.G., & Bloomfield, R.E. (1998). A methodology for safety case development. Safety-critical systems symposium (SSS 98). Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, P.G., Bloomfield, R.E., & Guerra, A.S.L. (2004). The future of goal-based assurance cases. Proceedings of workshop on assurance cases. Supplemental volume of the 2004 international conference on dependable systems and networks (pp. 390–395), Florence.
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08), Toulouse.
   Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, E.W. (1972). Chapter I: Notes on structured programming. In O.J. Dahl, E.W. Dijkstra, & C.A.R. Hoare (Eds.), Structured programming. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (2004). Human computer interaction (3rd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Djaelangkara, S. (2012). Online system for safety argument review (MS thesis) Department of Computer Science, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Emmet, L., & Cleland, G. (2002). Graphical notations, narratives and persuasion: A pliant systems approach to hypertext tool design. Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia, conference on hypertext and hypermedia (pp. 55–64), College Park, MD. doi: 10.1145/513338.513354
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, T.F., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P.E. Dunne & T.J.M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Proceedings of computational models of argument (COMMA 2006) (pp. 195–207). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwell, W.S., Holloway, C.M., & Knight, J.C. (2005). A taxonomy of fallacies in system safety arguments. Proceedings of the international conference on dependable systems and networks, Yokohama, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Haddon-Cave, Q.C. (2009). The Nimrod review – An independent review into the broader issues surrounding the loss of the RAF Nimrod MR2 aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006. London: Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theora, 37, 130–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, R., Habli, I., Kelly, T., & McDermid, J. (2013). Assurance cases and prescriptive software safety certification: A comparative study. Safety Science, 59, 55–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J., & Graydon, P. (2011). A new approach to creating clear safety arguments. Advances in Systems Safety – Proceedings of the nineteenth safety-critical systems symposium (pp. 3–23). Southampton: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission. (2010). Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems (IEC 61508 ed2.0). Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://www.iec.ch/
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., McBurney, P., & Parsons S. (2003). When are two protocols the same? In M.P. Huget (Ed.), Communication in multiagent systems: Agent communication languages and conversation policies (pp. 253–268). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2650. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, T.P. (1999). Arguing safety – A systematic approach to safety case management (PhD thesis) Department of Computer Science, University of York, York.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, T.P. (2005). Using software architecture techniques to support the modular certification of safety-critical systems. Proceedings of eleventh Australian workshop on safety-related programmable systems, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, T.P. (2007). Reviewing assurance arguments – A step-by-step approach. Proceedings of workshop on assurance cases for security – The metrics challenge, dependable systems and networks (DSN), Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, T.P. (2008). Are safety cases working? UK Safety Critical Systems Club newsletter, 17(2), 31–33.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, T.P., & Weaver, R.A. (2004). The goal structuring notation – A safety argument notation. Proceedings of the dependable systems and networks 2004 workshop on assurance cases, Florence.
   Google Scholar
• Kontarinis, D., Bonzon, E., Maudet, N., & Moraitis, P. (2012). Picking the right expert to make a debate uncontroversial. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 486–497), Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbe, E. (2000). Symposium on argument and computation group: argument and computational societies, position paper. Symposium on argument and computation, Bonskeid House, Perthshire, Scotland.
   Google Scholar
• Leveson, N. (2011). The use of safety cases in certification and regulation. Journal of System Safety, 47(6), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, J.D. (1979). Question–begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 117–133. doi: 10.1007/BF00258422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maudet, N., & Moore, D. (2001). Dialogue games as dialogue models for interacting with, and via, computers. Informal Logic, 21(3), 219–243.
   Google Scholar
• Mazurek, M., Gerasimou, S., Madan, B., & Setivarahalli, G. (2011). Software for safety argument review (MSc Software Engineering Team Project Report). University of York, York.
   Google Scholar
• McDermid, J.A. (1991). Safety arguments, software and system reliability. Proceedings of the international symposium on software reliability engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.
   Google Scholar
• McDermid, J.A. (2001). Software safety: where's the evidence? Proceeding of the 6th Australian workshop on industrial experience with safety systems and software, Brisbane: Australian Computer Society (pp. 1–6).
   Google Scholar
• Object Management Group. (2010). Argument metamodel. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/ARM
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2000). On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. Proceedings of JELIA’2000, the 7th European workshop on logics in artificial intelligence (pp. 224–238). Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1919. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009–1040. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exi046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravenscroft, A., & Pilkington, R.M. (2000). Investigation by design: Developing dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 273–298.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, C.A., & Rowe, G.W.A. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 13(4), 961–980. doi: 10.1142/S0218213004001922
   Google Scholar
• UK Ministry of Defence. (1997). Defence standard 00-55 – The procurement of safety critical software in defence equipment. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://www.dstan.mod.uk/.
   Google Scholar
• UK Ministry of Defence. (2004). Defence standard 00-56 (Issue 3), Safety management requirements for defence systems. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://www.dstan.mod.uk/.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concept of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wan, F. (2010). Computer-assisted argument review – A dialectics approach (MSc thesis) Department of Computer Science, University of York, York.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., & Bryant, A. (2002). Process-based software engineering: Building the infrastructures. Annals of Software Engineering, 14(1–4), 9–37. doi: 10.1023/A:1020537121530
   Google Scholar
• Wassyng, A., Maibaum, T., Lawford, M., & Bherer, H. (2011). Software certification: Is there a case against safety cases? Foundations of computer software. Modeling, development, and verification of adaptive systems (pp. 206–227). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6662. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, R.A., Fenn, J., & Kelly, T.P. (2003). A pragmatic approach to reasoning about the assurance of safety arguments. Proceedings of 8th Australian workshop on safety critical systems and software (SCS’03), Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., & Kelly, T. (2011). Argument schemes in computer system safety engineering. Informal Logic, 31(2), 89–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., & Kelly, T. (2012). Argument-based approach to computer system safety engineering. International Journal of Critical Computer-based Systems, 3 (3), 151–167. doi: 10.1504/IJCCBS.2012.050295
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., Moore, D., & Grierson, A. (2003). Computational agents as a test-bed to study philosophical model ‘DE’, a development of Mackenzie's ‘DC’. Informal Logic, 23(3), 263–284.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., Moore, D., & Grierson, A. (2007). A human computer debating system and its dialogue strategies. Special Issue on Computational Models of Natural Argument of the International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 133–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., Moore, D., & Grierson, A. (2008). A human-computer dialogue system for educational debate, a computational dialectics approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(1), 3–26.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., Moore, D., Reed, C., Ravenscroft, A., & Maudet, N. (2011). Informal logic dialogue games in human-computer dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(2), 159–174. doi: 10.1017/S026988891100004X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., & Wells, S. (2013). ProtOCL: Specifying dialogue games using UML and OCL. Proceedings of the ICAIL’13 workshop on computational models of natural argument, Rome.
   Google Scholar