MTBF Inconsistency Analysis on Inferred Product Breakdown Structures

  • Christian Ellen
  • Martin Böschen
  • Thomas Peikenkamp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8696)


This article describes our current work on the combination of an ontology-based knowledge representation and formal analysis procedures. We use formalized system engineering knowledge and partial architectural information (induced by a set of requirements) to formalize natural language requirements and to identify inconsistencies based on this formalization. Our analysis combines requirements specified by patterns and an ontology-based product breakdown structure. As an example, we identify inconsistencies between Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) specifications of systems and their subsystems.


MTBF Analysis Ontology Requirements Engineering Verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Description logics. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 3–28. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozzano, M., Villafiorita, A.: Design and Safety Assesment of Critical Systems. Auerbach Publications (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BTC Embedded Systems: BTC Embedded Specifier, (last visited May 27, 2014)
  4. 4.
    Damm, W., Hungar, H., Henkler, S., Stierand, I., Josko, B., Oertel, M., Reinkemeier, P., Baumgart, A., Büker, M., Gezgin, T., Ehmen, G., Weber, R.: SPES2020 Architecture Modeling. Tech. rep., OFFIS e.V. (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S.: Owl 2 web ontology language primer. W3C Recommendation 27(1), 123 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Standard Organization: Road Vehicles - Functional Safety (November 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, D.L.: Reliability characteristics for two subsystems in series or parallel or n subsystems in m_out_of_n arrangement. Tech. rep., Aurora Consulting Engineering LLC (2006),
  8. 8.
    Llorens, J., Morato, J., Genova, G.: RSHP: an information representation model based on relationships. In: Damiani, E., Madravio, M., Jain, L. (eds.) Soft Computing in Software Engineering. STUDFUZZ, vol. 159, pp. 221–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitschke, A., Loughran, N., Josko, B., Oertel, M., Rehkop, P., Häusler, S., Benveniste, A.: RE Language Definitions to formalize multi-criteria requirements V2. Tech. rep., The CESAR Consortium (2010),
  10. 10.
    Oertel, M., Mahdi, A., Böde, E., Rettberg, A.: Contract-based safety: Specification and application guidelines. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emerging Ideas and Trends in Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems, EITEC 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rajan, A., Wahl, T. (eds.): CESAR - Cost-efficient Methods and Processes for Safety-relevant Embedded Systems, No. 978-3709113868. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Reuse Company: Requirements Quality Suite, (last visited May 27, 2014)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Ellen
    • 1
  • Martin Böschen
    • 1
  • Thomas Peikenkamp
    • 1
  1. 1.OFFIS - Institute for Information TechnologyOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations