Abstract
The introduction of safety cases was a step in the right direction in regards to safety assurance. As presently practiced, safety cases aim at making a serious attempt to explicate, and to provide some structure for, the reasoning involved in assuring that a system is safe, generally in terms of so-called structured arguments. However, the fact current notations for expressing these structured arguments have no formal semantics and, at best, are loosely linked to goal structuring ideas and to Toulmin’s notion of an argument pattern, is a crucial issue to be addressed. History clearly demonstrates that languages that have no formal semantics are deficient in relation to the requirements of a serious approach to engineering. In other words, one can only go so far with intuition, and certainly not far enough to justify the safety of complex systems, such as Cyber Physical Systems or autonomous cars. By rehearsing Gentzen’s program for formalizing mathematical reasoning, his famous Calculus of Natural Deduction, we show how we can begin a program of formalizing safety reasoning by developing a working definition of a structured argument in a safety case and a calculus for safety reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
The GSN Working Group: Goal Structuring Notation. Version 1, November 2011
Adelard: Claim, Argument, Evidence Notation. Accessed 25 Jan 2016
Pólya, G.: How to Solve It, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2004)
van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)
Rushby, J.: Logic and epistemology in safety cases. In: Bitsch, F., Guiochet, J., Kaâniche, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8153, pp. 1–7. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40793-2_1
Bochman, A.: Non-monotonic reasoning. In: Gabbay, D., Woods, J. (eds.) Handbook of the History of Logic: The Many Valued and Nonmonotonic Turn in Logic, vol. 8, pp. 555–632. North-Holland, Amsterdam (2007)
Goodenough, J., Weinstock, C., Klein, A.: Eliminative induction: a basis for arguing system confidence. In: 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013), pp. 1161–1164 (2013)
Bloomfield, R., Littlewood, B.: Multi-legged arguments: the impact of diversity upon confidence in dependability arguments. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2003), pp. 25–34 (2003)
Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1993)
UK Ministry of Defense: Defence standard 00–56 issue 4: safety management requirements for defence systems (2007)
Gentzen, G.: Investigations into logical deduction. Am. Philos. Q. 1(4), 288–306 (1964)
Prawitz, D.: Natural Deduction: A Proof-theoretical Study. AWE (1965)
van Dalen, D.: Logic and Structure, 5th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Carnap, R.: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 5th edn. Dover, Mineola (1966)
Hoare, C.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)
Hitchcock, D.: Toulmin’s warrants. In: van Eemeren, F., et al. (eds.) Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, vol. 8, pp. 69–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Åqvist, L.: Deontic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, 2nd edn, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Hempel, C.: Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1966)
Achinstein, P.: The Book of Evidence. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)
Haack, S.: Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)
Mayo, D., Spanos, A.: Error and Inference: Recent Exchanges on Experimental Reasoning, Reliability, and the Objectivity and Rationality of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)
McDermid, J.: Safety arguments, software and system reliability. In: 2nd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 1991), pp. 43–50 (1991)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cassano, V., Maibaum, T.S.E., Grigorova, S. (2016). A (Proto) Logical Basis for the Notion of a Structured Argument in a Safety Case. In: Ogata, K., Lawford, M., Liu, S. (eds) Formal Methods and Software Engineering. ICFEM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10009. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47846-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47846-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47845-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47846-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)