摘要: Suitable formalisms could allow the arguments of a safety case to be checked mechanically. We examine some issues in doing so.
springer.com
harvard.edu
sri.com 
sci-hub.st 参考文章(21)
Tim Kelly, Rob Weaver, The Goal Structuring Notation – A Safety Argument Notation ,(2004)
Albert R. Jonsen, Stephen Edelston Toulmin Hastings Center Report. ,vol. 40, pp. 1- ,(2010)
William S. Greenwell, Jacob J. Pease, John C. Knight, C. Michael Holloway, A Taxonomy of Fallacies in System Safety Arguments University of Virginia, Department of Computer Science. ,(2006)
N. Basir, E. Denney, B. Fischer, Deriving safety cases from automatically constructed proofs international conference on systems. pp. 1- 6 ,(2009) , 10.1049/CP.2009.1535
Stephen Edelston Toulmin, The uses of argument ,(1958)
John Rushby, Software Verification and System Assurance software engineering and formal methods. pp. 3- 10 ,(2009) , 10.1109/SEFM.2009.39
Ricky W. Butler, George B. Finelli, The infeasibility of experimental quantification of life-critical software reliability ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. ,vol. 16, pp. 66- 76 ,(1991) , 10.1145/123041.123054
R.W. Butler, G.B. Finelli, The infeasibility of quantifying the reliability of life-critical real-time software IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. ,vol. 19, pp. 3- 12 ,(1993) , 10.1109/32.210303
Jennifer Black, Philip Koopman, System safety as an emergent property in composite systems 2009 IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks. pp. 369- 378 ,(2009) , 10.1109/DSN.2009.5270316
J. Rushby, Harnessing Disruptive Innovation in Formal Verification software engineering and formal methods. pp. 21- 30 ,(2006) , 10.1109/SEFM.2006.24