Advertisement

A Modelling Approach for System Life Cycles Assurance

  • Shuji Kinoshita
  • Yoshiki Kinoshita
  • Makoto TakeyamaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11699)

Abstract

System assurance involves assuring properties of both a target system itself and the system life cycle acting on it. Assurance of the latter seems less understood than the former, due partly to the lack of consensus on what a ‘life cycle model’ is. This paper proposes a formulation of life cycle models that aims to clarify what it means to assure that a life cycle so modelled achieves expected outcomes. Dependent Petri Net life cycle model is a variant of coloured Petri nets with inputs and outputs that interacts and controls the real life cycle being modelled. Tokens held at a place are data representing artefacts together with assurance that they satisfy conditions associated with the place. The ‘propositions as types’ notion is used to represent evidence(proofs) for assurance as data included in tokens. The intended application is a formulation of the DEOS life cycle model with assurance that it achieves open systems dependability, which is standardised as IEC 62853.

Keywords

System assurance Dependent Petri Nets IEC 62853 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the project TIGARS (Towards Identifying and closing Gaps in Assurance of autonomous Road vehicleS), a partnership between Adelard LLP, City University in London, the University of Nagoya, Kanagawa University, and WITZ Corporation. TIGARS is a part of the Assuring Autonomy International Programme (AAIP) at the University of York, UK, an initiative funded by Lloyd’s Register Foundation and the University of York. The authors thank anonymous reviewers for helpful comments including pointers to related work, and members of the DEOS consortium for discussions on how to realise conceptual requirements in IEC 62853 in more concrete terms.

References

  1. 1.
    ISO, IEC and IEEE: ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 Systems and software engineering - System life cycle processes (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO, IEC and IEEE: ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748–1:2018 Systems and software engineering - Life cycle management - Part 1: Guidelines for life cycle management (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use, vol. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tokoro, M. (ed.): Open Systems dependability—Dependability Engineering for Ever-Changing Systems, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IEC: IEC 62853 Open systems dependability (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ly, L.T., et al.: Compliance monitoring in business processes: functionalities, application, and tool-support. Inform. Syst. 54, 209–234 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G.: The regorous approach to process compliance. In: 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Normative requirements for regulatory compliance: an abstract formal framework. Inform. Syst. Front. 18(3), 429–455 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casterallnos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B.: Formal contract logic based patterns for facilitating compliance checking against ISO 26262. In: 1st Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance, pp. 65–722 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon, E., Stoffel, K.: State machines and petri nets as a formal representation for systems life cycle management. In: Proceedings of IADIS International Conference Information Systems, pp. 275–272. IADIS Press, Barcelona (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petri, C.A.: Kommunikation mit Automaten. Schriften des Institut für Instrumentelle Mathematik. Universität Bonn (1962)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heijstek, W., Chaudron, M.: Evaluating rup software development processes through visualization of effort distribution. In: 2008 34th Euromicro Conference Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinoshita, Y., Takeyama, M.: Assurance case as a proof in a theory—towards formulation of rebuttals. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Assuring the Safety of Systems, pp. 205–230. SCSC, Greenville (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin-Löf, P.: Intuitionistic Type Theory. Studies in Proof Theory, vol. 1. Bibliopolis, Naple (1984). Notes by Giovanni SambinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO, IEC and IEEE: ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289:2017 Systems and software engineering - content of life-cycle information items (documentation) (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Agda Team: The Agda Wiki. https://wiki.portal.chalmers.se/agda/pmwiki.php. Accessed 10 June 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuji Kinoshita
    • 1
  • Yoshiki Kinoshita
    • 1
  • Makoto Takeyama
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Kanagawa UniversityHiratsukaJapan

Personalised recommendations