Using Ontologies in the Integration of Structural, Functional, and Process Perspectives in the Development of Safety Critical Systems
We present a systematic approach for the efficient management of the data involved in the development process of safety critical systems, illustrating how the activities performed during the life-cycle can be integrated in a common framework. Information needed in these activities reflects concepts that pertain to three different perspectives: i) structural elements of design and implementation; ii) functional requirements and quality attributes; iii) organization of the overall process. The integration of these concepts may considerably improve the trade-off between reward and effort spent in verification and quality-driven activities.
We address the exploitation of ontological modeling and semantic technologies so as to support cohesion across different stages of the development life-cycle, attaching a machine-readable semantics to concepts belonging to structural, functional and process perspectives. The formalized conceptualization enables the implementation of a tool leveraging on well established technologies aiding the accomplishment of crucial and effort-expensive activities such as the identification of the associations between requirements and the SW components implementing them.
KeywordsOntologies automated reasoning Traceability Requirements SW Engineering Reliability Availability Maintainability and Safety certification standards
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bicchierai, I., Bucci, G., Nocentini, C., Vicario, E.: Integrating metrics in an ontological framework supporting sw-fmea. In: 2012 3rd International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics, WETSoM, pp. 35–41 (2012)Google Scholar
- 3.Bicchierai, I., Bucci, G., Nocentini, C., Vicario, E.: An ontological approach to systematization of SW-FMEA. In: Ortmeier, F., Lipaczewski, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7612, pp. 173–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.BWB - Federal Office for Military Technology and Procurement of Germany. V-Model 97, Lifecycle Process Model-Developing Standard for IT Systems of the Federal Republic of Germany. General Directive No. 250 (June 1997)Google Scholar
- 5.CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. CENELEC EN 50128 Railway applications - Communications, signalling and processing systems - Software for railway control and protection systems (March 2001)Google Scholar
- 6.Dokas, I.M., Ireland, C.: Ontology to support knowledge representation and risk analysis for the development of early warning system in solid waste management operations. In: Int. Symp. on Environmental Software Systems, ISESS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
- 7.Eaddy, M., Aho, A., Murphy, G.C.: Identifying, assigning, and quantifying crosscutting concerns. In: Proc. of the First International Workshop on Assessment of Contemporary Modularization Techniques, ACoM 2007, Washington, USA (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Fiaschetti, A., Lavorato, F., Suraci, V., Palo, A., Taglialatela, A., Morgagni, A., Baldelli, R., Flammini, F.: On the Use of Semantic Technologies to Model and Control Security, Privacy and Dependability in Complex Systems. In: Flammini, F., Bologna, S., Vittorini, V. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6894, pp. 467–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML (May 2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
- 12.Jordan, P.: IEC 62304 International Standard Edition 1.0 Medical device software - Software life cycle processes. The Institution of Engineering and Technology Seminar on Software for Medical Devices (2006)Google Scholar
- 14.McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
- 15.Mokos, K., Meditskos, G., Katsaros, P., Bassiliades, N., Vasiliades, V.: Ontology-based model driven engineering for safety verification. In: 2010 36th EUROMICRO Conference on Softw. Eng. and Advanced Applications, SEAA, pp. 47–54 (2010)Google Scholar
- 16.Object Management Group. Ontology Definition Metamodel v1.0 (2009)Google Scholar
- 17.Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF (January 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
- 18.QA Systems - The Software Quality Company. Cantata++, http://www.qa-systems.com/cantata.html
- 19.Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (1992)Google Scholar
- 23.Spinczyk, O., Gal, A., Schröder-Preikschat, W.: AspectC++: An Aspect-Oriented Extension to C++. In: Proc. of the 40th Int. Conf. on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, TOOLS, pp. 53–60 (2002)Google Scholar
- 24.United States Department of Defense. MIL-STD-498, Military Standard For Software Development And Documentation. Technical report, USDoD (1994)Google Scholar
- 25.USC Center for Software Engineering. UCC: Unified Code Count, http://sunset.usc.edu/research/CODECOUNT/