Adoption of Opacity-based Graphical Highlights as a Representation of Structured Assurance Case Metamodel ArgumentGroup
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30865/klik.v4i1.987Keywords:
Assurance Case; Opacity; Structured Assurance Case Metamodel Notation; ArgumentGroupAbstract
An assurance case is a means of facilitating communication, analysis and information exchange between stackholders involved in the system security and application development process, depending on its purpose and context. There are several frameworks that can be used when creating assurance cases, one of which is the Structured Assurance Case Metamodel Notation (SACMN), which has a more expressive notation than other frameworks. When creating an assurance case, it is necessary to consider the ArgumentGroup, where all elements are categorised as a group. The SACMN ArgumentGroup has been represented visually using dotted lines and there are still shortcomings in the process of understanding assurance cases and their visualisation. Thus, the opacity-based graphical highlighting technique is an alternative in visually representing the ArgumentGroup by manipulating the opacity on the notation of relevant or irrelevant elements. Therefore, this research was conducted with the aim of observing users in terms of speed, effectiveness and accuracy in answering statements with perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use of ArgumentGroup in SACMN applications and development of existing SACMN applications. Based on the research conducted, it can be seen that the results of the questionnaire testing in relation to the user statements of ArgumentGroup in terms of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have a value of 0.705 and 0.727, which are included in the reliable category as a valid questionnaire. With a reliable and valid questionnaire, the results obtained from users using opacity highlights have better scores than dotted lines and can be categorised as successful for adoption as a visual representation of ArgumentGroup SACMN with the highest scores of 25 and 20
Downloads
References
Omg, “An OMG® Structured Assurance Case Metamodel TM Publication Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM) Version 2.2,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.omg.org/spec/SACM.
R. Hawkins, I. Habli, D. Kolovos, R. Paige, and T. Kelly, “Weaving an Assurance Case from Design: A Model-Based Approach,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Jan. 2015, pp. 110–117. doi: 10.1109/HASE.2015.25.
M. Maksimov, N. L. S. Fung, S. Kokaly, and M. Chechik, “Two decades of assurance case tools: A survey,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Springer Verlag, 2018, pp. 49–59. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_6.
R. Wei, T. P. Kelly, X. Dai, S. Zhao, and R. Hawkins, “Model based system assurance using the structured assurance case metamodel,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 154, pp. 211–233, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.013.
N. Selviandro, R. Hawkins, and I. Habli, “A Visual Notation for the Representation of Assurance Cases Using SACM,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2020, pp. 3–18. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58920-2_1.
N. Selviandro, “Metamodel-Driven Development of an Assurance Case Notation,” 2021.
C. Picardi, R. Hawkins, C. Paterson, and I. Habli, “A Pattern for Arguing the Assurance of Machine Learning in Medical Diagnosis Systems,” in International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security SAFECOMP 2019: Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Springer, Cham, Aug. 2019.
C. Picardi and I. Habli, “Perspectives on Assurance Case Development for Retinal Disease Diagnosis Using Deep Learning,” in AIME 2019: Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Springer, Cham, May 2019, pp. 365–370.
G. Jošt, M. Heri?ko, and G. Polan?i?, “Theoretical foundations and implementation of business process diagrams’ complexity management technique based on highlights,” Softw Syst Model, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1079–1095, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10270-017-0618-5.
G. Jošt, J. Huber, M. Heri?ko, and G. Polan?i?, “Improving cognitive effectiveness of business process diagrams with opacity-driven graphical highlights,” Decis Support Syst, vol. 103, pp. 58–69, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2017.09.003.
R. A. Sutopo, N. Selviandro, and G. S. Wulandari, “Analysis and Implementation of Web-based Graphic Editor for Structured Assurance Case Metamodel Notation,” in 1st International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Technology (ICoSEIT), 2022, pp. 222–227.
M. Salahshour Rad, M. Nilashi, and H. Mohamed Dahlan, “Information technology adoption: a review of the literature and classification,” Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 17, no. 2. Springer Verlag, pp. 361–390, Jun. 01, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s10209-017-0534-z.
H. Taherdoost, “A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories,” in Procedia Manufacturing, Elsevier B.V., 2018, pp. 960–967. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137.
P. Lai, “The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology,” Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21–38, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002.
E. Denney and G. Pai, “Tool support for assurance case development,” Automated Software Engineering, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 435–499, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10515-017-0230-5.
S. Fortmann-Roe, “Insight Maker: A general-purpose tool for web-based modeling & simulation,” Simul Model Pract Theory, vol. 47, pp. 28–45, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2014.03.013.
P. J. Graydon and C. M. Holloway, “An investigation of proposed techniques for quantifying confidence in assurance arguments,” Safety Science, vol. 92. Elsevier B.V., pp. 53–65, Feb. 01, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.014.
O. Jaradat, I. Sljivo, I. Habli, and R. Hawkins, “Challenges of Safety Assurance for Industry 4.0,” in Proceedings - 2017 13th European Dependable Computing Conference, EDCC 2017, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Nov. 2017, pp. 103–106. doi: 10.1109/EDCC.2017.21.
K. Tuma, G. Calikli, and R. Scandariato, “Threat analysis of software systems: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 144, pp. 275–294, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.06.073.
Bila bermanfaat silahkan share artikel ini
Berikan Komentar Anda terhadap artikel Adoption of Opacity-based Graphical Highlights as a Representation of Structured Assurance Case Metamodel ArgumentGroup
ARTICLE HISTORY
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 M Haikal Abdussalam, Nungki Selviandro, Gia Septiana Wulandari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (Refer to The Effect of Open Access).
