Advertisement

Adapting the Orthogonal Defect Classification Taxonomy to the Space Domain

  • Nuno SilvaEmail author
  • Marco Vieira
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9922)

Abstract

Space systems are developed using conservative technologies and processes and respecting requirements and restrictions imposed by specific standards, domain policies, and design and optimization constraints. However, the artefacts produced at each lifecycle phase are not perfect. To overcome this, Independent Software Verification and Validation (ISVV) represents a valuable asset to detect issues, but, a proper and efficient issue classification system is necessary to analyze the root causes, identify the development processes to improve, and assess the efficiency of verification activities. The Orthogonal Defect Classification (ODC) is the most commonly used and adopted classification scheme, but was not originally targeted to engineering issues in critical systems. In this paper we present an empirical study where ODC has been used to classify space domain issues and propose an adaptation of the taxonomy for space systems.

Keywords

Defect Safety critical Quality Dependability Root cause analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the European Project FP7-2012-324334-CECRIS (CErtification of CRItical Systems).

References

  1. 1.
    RTCA DO-178B (EUROCAE ED-12B), Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, RTCA Inc., Washington, DC, December 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CENELEC EN 50128: Railway applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems - Software for railway control and protection systemsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ECSS-E-ST-40C, Space engineering - Software, ECSS, 06/03/2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ECSS-Q-ST-80, Space Product Assurance - Software Product Assurance, ECSS, 06/03/2009Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ESA ISVV Guide, issue 2.0, 29/12/2008, European Space AgencyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orthogonal Defect Classification v 5.2 for Software Design and Code, IBM, 12 September 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEEE 1012-2004 - IEEE Standard for Software Verification and Validation. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC 12207:2008 Systems and software engineering – Software life cycle processesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, M.: Software Engineering: Are we getting better at it? ESA Bulletin 121, 52–57 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leszak, M., Perry, D.E., Stoll, D.: Classification and evaluation of defects in a project retrospective. J. Syst. Softw. 61, 173–187 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leszak, M., Perry, D.E., Stoll, D.: A case study in root cause defect analysis. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference SW Engineering (ICSE’OO), pp. 428–437. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Margarido, L., João Pascoal, I., Raul, F., Vidal, M., Vieira, M.: Classification of defect types in requirements specifications: literature review, proposal and assessment. In: 2011 6th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2011). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5974237
  13. 13.
    Li, N., Li, Z., Sun, X.: Classification of software defect detected by black-box testing: an empirical study. In: 2010 Second World Congress on Software Engineering (WCSE), Wuhan, pp. 234–240 (2010). doi: 10.1109/WCSE.2010.28
  14. 14.
    Lutz, R.R., Mikulski, I.C.: Empirical analysis of safety-critical anomalies during operations. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(3), 172–180 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lutz, R.: Analyzing software requirements errors in safety-critical, embedded systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium Requirements Engineering, pp. 126–133. IEEE CS Press (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lutz, R., Mikulski, I.C.: Operational anomalies as a cause of safety-critical requirements evolution. J. Syst. Softw. 65, 155–161 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seaman, C.B., Shull, F., Regardie, M., Elbert, D., Feldmann, R.L., Guo, Y., Godfrey, S.: Defect categorization: making use of a decade of widely varying historical data. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 149–57. ACM (2008). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1414030
  18. 18.
    Silva, N., Rui, L.: Independent test verification: what metrics have a word to say. In: 1st International Workshop on Software Certification (WoSoCER), ISSRE, Hiroshima, Japan, 30 November 2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silva, N.; Lopes, R.: Overview of 10 years of ISVV findings in safety-critical systems. In: 2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Work-shops (ISSREW), p. 83, 27–30 November 2012Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silva, N.; Lopes, R.: Independent assessment of safety-critical systems: we bring data!. In: 2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), p. 84, 27–30 November 2012Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silva, N., Lopes, R.: 10 years of ISVV: what’s next? In: 2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pp. 361–366, 27–30 November 2012Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diego, V., Grazioli, F., Herbert, J.: A framework to evaluate defect taxonomies. In: XV Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de La Computación (2009). http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/20983
  23. 23.
    Stefan, W.: Defect classification and defect types revisited. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Workshop on Defects in Large Software Systems, pp. 39–40. ACM (2008). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1390829
  24. 24.
    Wagner, S.: A model and sensitivity analysis of the quality economics of defect-detection techniques. In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2006, pp. 73–83. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Copeland L.: Software Defect Taxonomies. http://flylib.com/books/en/2.156.1.108/1/
  26. 26.
    Grady, R.B.: Practical Software Metrics For Project Management and Process Improvement. HP (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    IEEE: IEEE 1044-2009 Standard Classification for Software Anomalies. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 7 January 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CRITICAL Software S.A.CoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.DEI/CISUCUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations