Towards evidence-based architectural design for safety-critical software applications

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4615 LNCS, Issue , 2007, Pages 383-408

  Wu, Weihang ^a   Kelly, Tim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Design decisions; Software architecture; Software safety evidence

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; SECURITY SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

DEPENDABLE SYSTEMS; DESIGN DECISIONS; MITIGATION MODELS; ROBUST SOFTWARE; SOFTWARE SAFETY EVIDENCE; SYSTEM ARCHITECTURES;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 39149145169     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-74035-3_17     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (55)

1. ARP 4761: Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (1996)
2. Australian Defence Standard Def(Aust) 5679: Procurement of Computer-based Safety Critical Systems, Australian Department of Defence (1998)
3. IEC 615038 - Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic SafetyRelated Systems, International Electrotechnical Commission (1998)
4. Netica, Norsys Software Corp. (2006), http://www.norsys.com/
5. RTCA/DO-178B: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (1992)
6. The United Modelling Language (UML) Specification. The Object Management Group (2005)
7. Achour, C.B., Rolland, C., Souveyet, C.: Guiding Goal Modelling Using Scenarios. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 24(2), 1055-1071
8. Alexander, I.: Misuse Cases: Use Cases with Hostile Intent. IEEE Software 20(1), 58-66
9. Allenby, K., Kelly, T.: Deriving Safety Requirements using Scenarios. In: the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering(RE'Ol), p. 228. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)
10. Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Klein, M.: Deriving Architectural Tactics: A Step Toward Methodical Architectural Design, SEI (2003)
11. Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, USA (2003)
12. Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)
13. Brandozzi, M., Perry, D.E.: From Goal-Oriented Requirements to Architectural Prescriptions: The Preskriptor Process. In: Proceedings of Third International Workshop From SofTware Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'03), pp. 107-113 (2003)
14. Buhr, R.J.A., Casselman, R.S.: Use Case Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)
15. Clements, P.: Documenting software architectures: views and beyond. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)
16. Conklin, J., Begeman, M.L.: gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on OfficeInformation Systems 6(4), 303-331
17. Easterbrook, S., Lutz, R., Covington, R., Kelly, J., Ampo, Y., Hamilton, D.: Experiences Using Lightweight Formal Methods for Requirements Modeling. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 24(1), 4-14
18. Feather, M.S., Comford, S.L.: Quantitative risk-based requirements reasoning. Requirements Engineering 8(4), 248-265
19. Fenelon, P., McDermid, J., Nicholson, M., Pumfrey, D.: Towards Integrated Safety Analysis and Design. ACM Computing Reviews 2(1), 21-32
20. Galliers, J., Sutcliffe, A., Minocha, S.: An impact analysis method for safety-critical user interface design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 6(4), 341-369
21. Gregoriades, A., Sutcliffe, A.: Scenario-Based Assessment of Nonfunctional Requirements. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 31(5), 392-409
22. Gurp, J.V., Bosch, J.: SAABNet: Managing Qualitative Knowledge in Software Architecture Assessment. In: 7th IEEE International Symposium on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS 2000), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)
23. Hall, J., Jackson, M., Laney, R., Nuseibeh, B., Rapanotti, L.: Relating Software Requirements and Architectures using Problem Frames. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)
24. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Oevergaard, G.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass (1992)
25. Jaynes, E.T.: Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
26. Kelly, T.: Using Software Architecture Techniques to Support the Modular Certification of Safety-Critical Systems. In: Proceedings of Eleventh Australian Workshop on Safety-Related Programmable Systems (2006), http://www-users.cs. york.ac.uk/tpk/scs2006.pdf
27. Kelly, T.P.: Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Safety Case Management Department of Computer Science, DPhil Thesis, University of York, York (1999)
28. Kirwan, B., Ainsworth, L.K. (eds.): A Guide to Task Analysis: The Task Analysis Working Group. Taylor & Francis, Abington (1992)
29. Lamsweerde, A.v.: Elaborating Security Requirements by Construction of Intentional Anti-Models. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 148-157. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)
30. Lamsweerde, A.v.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Lamsweerde, A. (ed.) Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'01), pp. 249-263. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)
31. Lamsweerde, A.v., Dardenne, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed Requirements Acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3-50
32. Lamsweerde, A.v., Letier, E.: Integrating Obstacles in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering. In: Lamsweerde, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 53-62. IEEE Computer Society Press / ACM Press, Los Alamitos (1998)
33. Lemos, R.d., Saeed, A., Anderson, T.: On the Safety Analysis of Requirements Specifications. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, Instrument Society of America, pp. 217-227 (1994)
34. Leveson, N.G.: Intent Specifications: An Approach to Building Human-Centered Specifications. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 26(1), 15-35
35. Leveson, N.G.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)
36. Leveson, N.G., Modugno, F., Reese, J.D., Partridge, K., Sandys, S.D.: Integrated Safety Analysis of Requirements Specifications. In: Proceedings: 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (1997)
37. Lyu, M.R. (ed.): Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)
38. McDermid, J.A.: Software Safety: Where's the Evidence? In: McDermid, J.A. (ed.) The 6th Australian Workshop on IndustrialExperience with Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS'01) (Brisbane, 2001), Australian Computer Society (2001)
39. Morgan, C.: Of Probabilistic Wp and SP-and Compositionality. In: Symposium on the Occasion of 25 Years of CSP (London, 2004), pp. 220-241. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
40. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L.: B.N. Representing and Using Non-Functional Requirements:A Process-Oriented Approach. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 18(6), 497-497
41. Nuseibeh, B.: Weaving Together Requirements and Architectures. IEEE Computer 34(3), 115-114
42. Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: Expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Software Engineering, pp. 187-196. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)
43. Pamas, D.L., Clements, P.C.A: rational design process: How and why to fake it. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 12(2), 251-257
44. Pearl, J.: Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)
45. Potts, C., Antón, A.I.: Inquiry-based Requirements Analysis. IEEE Software. 21-32.
46. Ramesh, B., Dhar, V.: Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 18(6), 498-510
47. Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)
48. Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)
49. Stamatelatos, M., Apostolakis, G., Dezfuli, H., Everline, C., Guarro, S., Moieni, P., Mosleh, A., Paulos, T., Youngblood, R.: Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners, NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (2002)
50. The SERENE Partners: CSR, E., ERA, OT, TUV. The SERENE Method Manual SafEty and Risk Evaluation using bayesian NEts: SERENE, ERA Technology Ltd. (1999)
51. Vesely, W.E.: Fault Tree Handbook. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1987)
52. Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Deriving Safety Requirements as Part of System Architecture Definition. In: Proceedings of 24th International System Safety Conference, System Safety Society (2006)
53. Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Failure Modelling in Software Architecture Design for Safety. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 30(4), 1-7
54. Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Managing Architectural Design Decisions for Safety-Critical Software Systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
55. Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Safety Tactics for Software Architecture Design. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Computer Software and Applications Conference, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)