Advertisement

Using Ontologies in the Integration of Structural, Functional, and Process Perspectives in the Development of Safety Critical Systems

  • Irene Bicchierai
  • Giacomo Bucci
  • Carlo Nocentini
  • Enrico Vicario
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7896)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ontologies automated reasoning Traceability Requirements SW Engineering Reliability Availability Maintainability and Safety certification standards 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 1(1), 11–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  8. 8.
    Eisenbarth, T., Koschke, R., Simon, D.: Locating features in source code. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29, 210–224 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mehdhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C.V., Loingtier, J., Irwin, J.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Akşit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  15. 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. 16.
    Object Management Group. Ontology Definition Metamodel v1.0 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF (January 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  18. 18.
    QA Systems - The Software Quality Company. Cantata++, http://www.qa-systems.com/cantata.html
  19. 19.
    Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ridi, L., Torrini, J., Vicario, E.: Developing a scheduler with difference-bound matrices and the floyd-warshall algorithm. IEEE Software 29, 76–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sahner, R.A., Trivedi, K.S., Puliafito, A.: Performance and reliability analysis of computer systems: an example-based approach using the SHARPE software package. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. J. Web Sem. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 24.
    United States Department of Defense. MIL-STD-498, Military Standard For Software Development And Documentation. Technical report, USDoD (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    USC Center for Software Engineering. UCC: Unified Code Count, http://sunset.usc.edu/research/CODECOUNT/
  26. 26.
    Wirth, R., Berthold, B., Krämer, A., Peter: Knowledge-Based Support of System Analysis for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 9, 219–229 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wong, W.E., Gokhale, S.S., Horgan, J.R.: Quantifying the closeness between program components and features. J. Syst. Softw. 54, 87–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Bicchierai
    • 1
  • Giacomo Bucci
    • 1
  • Carlo Nocentini
    • 1
  • Enrico Vicario
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversità di FirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations