Organizing the shared space
From the March 19-20 meeting it is clear that crisp properties for each of the elements of an assurance case need to be established. This includes claims, arguments, evidence, confidence, assumptions, context, etc. Further, we need "collectors" for the topics listed on the ACRG main web page.
Ideally we would have folders or something to collect thoughts for these different elements and topics. I don't know how best to accomplish this in order to avoid a colossal mess. Perhaps Chris can help us here.
Another concern in this process is the management of this space.
For example, how do we avoid clutter or reorganize things if a better idea develops?
RE: your comment on confidence, I agree - by the way, I assume the "or" is a boolean "or"?
RE: confidence case: you might want to take a look at the assurance case "file" posted by Oleg where an explicit confidence case is made. I tend to think that confidence will end up being an implicit kind of property, but I'm not ready to write off the possible benefits of an explicit confidence case yet.
Reference documents would certainly be good to have. My understanding of the VO philosophy is to rely on taxonomies instead of a hierarchical structure for the objects in the repository. That is, we should think about how to tag the documents so that they are easy to find and browse within a category. I.e., what's important is not that they were presented on day 1 in a particular meeting, but that they deal with a particular aspect of assurance case development.
Hi Suhil! There is a taxonomy button at the upper right corner. I checked just now, it is empty. So, to answer your question, obviously, we don't have the right one. When setting up the medical VO group, I was forced to come up with one. I believe we should do the same here. Let us all suggest some categories. I can then put it in, since I've done it before. Assuming I have the right privileges here, which I probably do not.
Yes! I would like people to post reference documents.
And no, I don't know how best to collect them. What we need is a "reference" folder.
Chris may be able to help us here as well....
I have created a third taxonomy called "ACRG: Files", which currently contains only one term or 'folder' named "References". If you navigate to that folder from the [Files] menu button, you should be presented with an "Upload" widget on the right-hand column of the screen.
We have proposed the two taxonomy tags:
1) Developing Assurance/Safety Cases, and 2) Evaluating Assurance/Safety Cases.
What about breaking #1 into Methods for Doing (or a more elegant term) and Templates.
A subtag? under #2 ( Evaluating) would have use cases - manufacturer, regulator, purchaser (hdo) and acceptance criteria (when is a safety/effectiveness/assurance case acceptable)
Hi guys. I added myself to your group, so I could quickly prototype the discussion so far. (hope you don't mind)
I'll try. :-)
1) I think I see three questions here. The first question confuses me. Do you mean that you see no taxonomies for the ACRG group "today", or that you didn't see any "yesterday" [and haven't looked again yet today]?
2) As for "Topics", here is the vision for the normal operating mode (however, there is no strictly enforced rule about how groups choose to organize their various taxonomies). Firstly, there is a "Topics" taxonomy that does not belong to any group. It lays out at a high level what are the major thrusts and concerns that are relevant for the general "cyber-physical systems" community at large. At some point, in that general taxonomy, you come upon a leaf node, however. Secondly, it is up to certain "Special Interest Groups" to further sub-divide and formalize what are the important abstractions under their particular area of expertise. The naming convention typically chosen is "${Grp}: Topics", where ${Grp} is the 'short name' for that particular group. Am I making sense yet?
3) Finally, in addition to your topics taxonomy, I created an example of a 'folksonomy' called "ACRG: keywords". The difference between a 'taxonomy' and a 'folksonomy' is that group members have the ability to arbitrarily add new keywords to the folksonomy, as opposed to taxonomies which may only be defined/edited by your group's "manager(s)".
* BTW, I have no illusions that what I created is exactly what you want. I just wanted to get something concrete out there, so we could begin this particular part of the discussion (i.e. the mechanics of taxonomy maintenance on the VO).
Hi guys. Sorry, I've been on vacation for a few days. Yes, that is the idea of how it should work, with the additional feature that terms may be easily 'migrated' from one taxonomy to another with a simple point and click interface
I would have phrased it differently. It is intended to be the general taxonomy for all cps-vo content. You may use it to tag content within your group(s), as well.