{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,17]],"date-time":"2026-03-17T18:37:44Z","timestamp":1773772664894,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2006,10,1]],"date-time":"2006-10-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1159660800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.acm.org\/publications\/policies\/copyright_policy#Background"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["dl.acm.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["SIGBED Rev."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2006,10]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Many current safety certification standards are process-based, i.e. they prescribe a set of development techniques and methods. This is perhaps best exemplified by the use of Safety Integrity Levels (SILs), e.g. as defined by IEC 61508 and UK Defence Standard 00-55. SILs are defined according to the level of the risk posed by a system, and hence prescribe the tools, techniques and methods that should be adopted by the development and assessment lifecycle. Product-based certification relies on the generation and assurance of product-specific evidence that meets safety requirements derived from hazard analysis. This evidence can be used as the argument basis in a safety case. However, uncertainty about the provenance of evidence in such a safety case can undermine confidence. To address this problem, we argue that process arguments remain an essential element of any safety case. However, unlike the sweeping process-based integrity arguments of the past, we suggest instead that highly directed process arguments should be linked to the items of evidence used in the product case. Such arguments can address issues of tool integrity, competency of personnel, and configuration management. Much as deductive software safety arguments are desirable, there will always be inductive elements. Process-based arguments of the type we suggest address partly this problem by tackling the otherwise implicit assumptions underlying certification evidence.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1145\/1183088.1183090","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2007,1,17]],"date-time":"2007-01-17T18:32:02Z","timestamp":1169058722000},"page":"1-8","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":23,"title":["Process and product certification arguments"],"prefix":"10.1145","volume":"3","author":[{"given":"Ibrahim","family":"Habli","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK"}]},{"given":"Tim","family":"Kelly","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK"}]}],"member":"320","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2006,10]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_1_1_1","volume-title":"MOD","author":"K.","year":"1997"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_2_1","volume-title":"International Electrotechnical Commission","author":"{2} IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission","year":"1997"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_3_1","volume-title":"EUROCAE","author":"European EUROCAE","year":"1994"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_4_1","volume-title":"Proceedings of the Eighth Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, edited by T. Anderson & F. Redmill, Springer-Verlag","author":"Redmill F","year":"2000"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_5_1","volume-title":"UK MOD","author":"Defence UK","year":"2004"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_6_1","unstructured":"{6} I. M. Copi C. Cohen Introduction to Logic 10th Edition Prentice Hall 1998.  {6} I. M. Copi C. Cohen Introduction to Logic 10th Edition Prentice Hall 1998."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_7_1","unstructured":"{7} R. A. Weaver The Safety of Software - Constructing and Assuring Arguments DPhil Thesis Department of Computer Science University of York UK 2003.  {7} R. A. Weaver The Safety of Software - Constructing and Assuring Arguments DPhil Thesis Department of Computer Science University of York UK 2003."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"{8} T. P. Kelly Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Safety Case Management DPhil Thesis Department of Computer Science University of York UK 1998.  {8} T. P. Kelly Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Safety Case Management DPhil Thesis Department of Computer Science University of York UK 1998.","DOI":"10.1007\/3-540-48249-0_2"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_9_1","volume-title":"Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Workshop on Industrial Experience with Safety Critical Systems and Software, Australian Computer Society","author":"McDermid J.","year":"2001"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_10_1","unstructured":"{10} CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) SW01 - Regulatory Objective for Software Safety Assurance in Air Traffic Service Equipment CAA 1999.  {10} CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) SW01 - Regulatory Objective for Software Safety Assurance in Air Traffic Service Equipment CAA 1999."},{"key":"e_1_2_1_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/52.57887"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_12_1","volume-title":"Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier","volume":"81","author":"Bate I. J.","year":"2003"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_13_1","volume-title":"23rd International Conference, SAFECOMP 2004","author":"Armstrong J","year":"2004"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_14_1","volume-title":"Proceedings of the 20th International System Safety Conference","author":"Weaver R.A.","year":"2002"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_15_1","volume-title":"UK Ministry of Defence","author":"Defence UK","year":"2004"}],"container-title":["ACM SIGBED Review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/1183088.1183090","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1145\/1183088.1183090","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,18]],"date-time":"2025-06-18T15:06:36Z","timestamp":1750259196000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/1183088.1183090"}},"subtitle":["getting the balance right"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2006,10]]},"references-count":15,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2006,10]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1145\/1183088.1183090"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/1183088.1183090","relation":{},"ISSN":["1551-3688"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1551-3688","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2006,10]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2006-10-01","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}