Advertisement

Modelling to Safety

  • Alek Radjenovic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3527)

Abstract

In this position paper we outline the challenges that face safety critical systems. We identify the need to shift the validation emphasis from process to product, and state how formal proofs would be of great benefit by providing stronger evidence for safety case arguments. We also argue that a successful solution for the incremental certification problem could bring benefit to all levels of system design. A better understanding of the non-functional behaviour and methods for expressing, embedding into design, and managing properties that play a role in this aspect of safety critical systems are urgently needed. We also speculate that research into trusted components and compositional architectures is vital for the future of safety critical systems design. In partnership with BAE SYSTEMS, Rolls Royce, and QinetiQ, we have developed a framework and an architectural description language that addresses these issues.

Keywords

Unify Modelling Language Object Management Group Architectural Description Model Drive Architecture Fault Tree Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leveson, N.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B.: Fundamental Concepts of Computer System Dependability. In: Workshop on Robot Dependability: Technological Challenge of Dependable Robots in Human Environments, Seoul, Korea (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Littlewood, B., Strigini, L.: Validation of Ultradependability for Software Based Systems. In: Predictably Dependable Computing Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDermid, J.A., et al.: Experience with the application of HAZOP to computer-based systems. In: 10th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ARINC, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, in DO-178B, ARINC: Annapolis, Maryland (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG, MDA Guide Version 1.0. 2003, Object Management Group (2003) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG, OMG Unified Modelling Language Specification v1.4. 2001, Object Management Group (2001) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEEE-1471, Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE (2000) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    SAE, Architecture, Analysis and Design Language (AADL) v1.0. SAE Aerospace (2004) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garlan, D., Monroe, R., Wile, D.: Acme: An Architecture Description Interchange Language. In: Proc. of CASCON 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conmy, P.: What is a Contract? Technical Report. DARP HIRTS (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kopetz, H.: Component-Based Design of Large Distributed Real-Time Systems. Control Engineering Practice - A Journal of lFAC 6, 53–60 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radjenovic, A.: Architectural Information Modelling: The Infrastructure and the LRAAM CAse Study, Technical Report. DARP HIRTS (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alek Radjenovic
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations