Advertisement

MMINT-A: A Tool for Automated Change Impact Assessment on Assurance Cases

  • Nick L. S. FungEmail author
  • Sahar Kokaly
  • Alessio Di Sandro
  • Rick Salay
  • Marsha Chechik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11094)

Abstract

Assurance cases are a means to argue about the safety, security, etc., of software systems in critical domains. As systems evolve, their assurance cases can grow in complexity, making them difficult to maintain. In this paper, we present a tool MMINT-A that can, in the context of model-driven development, assess the impact of system changes on their assurance cases. To achieve this, MMINT-A implements an impact assessment algorithm from previous work [7, 8] and incorporates a graphical assurance case editor, an annotation mechanism, and two summary tables for the assessment results. We demonstrate the usage of MMINT-A on a Power Sliding Door example from the automotive domain.

Keywords

Assurance Cases Change Impact Assessment Tool support 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper has been funded by General Motors and NSERC Canada. The authors thank Mark Lawford, Alan Wassyng and Tom Maibaum for many useful discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    Attwood, K., Chinneck, P., Clarke, M., et. al.: GSN Community Standard Version 1. Technical report, Origin Consulting (York) Limited (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calinescu, R., Weyns, D., Gerasimou, S., Iftikhar, M.U., Habli, I., Kelly, T.: Engineering trustworthy self-adaptive software with dynamic assurance cases. In: IEEE TSE 2017, p. 1 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cârlan, C., Barner, S., Diewald, A., Tsalidis, A., Voss, S.: ExplicitCase: integrated model-based development of system and safety cases. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10489, pp. 52–63. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66284-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cruanes, S., Hamon, G., Owre, S., Shankar, N.: Tool integration with the evidential tool bus. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 275–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Sandro, A., Salay, R., Famelis, M., Kokaly, S., Chechik, M.: MMINT: a graphical tool for interactive model management. In: Proceedings of MoDELS 2015 (demo) (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 26262: Road Vehicles - Functional Safety, 1st version (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kokaly, S., Salay, R., Cassano, V., Maibaum, T., Chechik, M.: A model management approach for assurance case reuse due to system evolution. In: Proceedings of MoDELS 2016, pp. 196–206 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kokaly, S., Salay, R., Chechik, M., Lawford, M., Maibaum, T.: Safety case impact assessment in automotive software systems: an improved model-based approach. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10488, pp. 69–85. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66266-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kokaly, S., Salay, R., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Maibaum, T.: Model management for regulatory compliance: a position paper. In: Proceedings of MiSE 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis, R.: Safety case development as an information modelling problem. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Safety-Critical Systems Problems, Process and Practice, pp. 183–193. Springer, London (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-349-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maksimov, M., Fung, N.L.S., Kokaly, S., Chechik, M.: Two decades of assurance case tools: a survey. In: Proceedings of SAFECOMP 2018 Workshops. Springer (2018, accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM) Version 2.0 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salay, R., Kokaly, S., Chechik, M., Maibaum, T.: Heterogeneous megamodel slicing for model evolution. In: Proceedings of ME@MoDELS 2016, pp. 50–59 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salay, R., Kokaly, S., Di Sandro, A., Chechik, M.: Enriching megamodel management with collection-based operators. In: Proceedings of MODELS 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    University of York (UK): D4.2 Compositional Assurance Cases and Arguments for Distributed MILS (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick L. S. Fung
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sahar Kokaly
    • 2
  • Alessio Di Sandro
    • 1
  • Rick Salay
    • 1
  • Marsha Chechik
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations