Advertisement

From Requirements Engineering to Safety Assurance: Refinement Approach

  • Linas LaibinisEmail author
  • Elena Troubitsyna
  • Yuliya Prokhorova
  • Alexei Iliasov
  • Alexander Romanovsky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9409)

Abstract

Formal modelling and verification are widely used in the development of safety-critical systems. They aim at providing a mathematically-grounded argument about system safety. In particular, this argument can facilitate construction of a safety case – a structured safety assurance document required for certification of safety-critical systems. However, currently there is no adequate support for using the artefacts created during formal modelling in safety case development. In this paper, we present an approach and the corresponding tool support that tackles this problem in the Event-B modelling framework. Our approach establishes a link between safety requirements, Event-B models and corresponding fragments of a safety case. The supporting automated tool ensures traceability between requirements, models and safety cases.

Keywords

Safety Requirement Requirement Engineer Proof Obligation Tool Chain Tuple Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: Modeling in Event B. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    (EU-project DEPLOY). http://www.deploy-project.eu/
  3. 3.
    Romanovsky, A., Thomas, M. (eds.): Industrial Deployment of System Engineering Methods. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    (EU-project RODIN). http://rodin.cs.ncl.ac.uk/
  5. 5.
    OSLC: (Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration.). http://open-services.net/
  6. 6.
    RODIN: Event-B Platform (2009). http://www.event-b.org/
  7. 7.
    (EU-project ADVANCE). http://www.advance-ict.eu
  8. 8.
    Prokhorova, Y., Laibinis, L., Troubitsyna, E.: Towards rigorous construction of safety cases. Technical Report 1110 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bishop, P., Bloomfield, R.: A methodology for safety case development. In: Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, Birmingham, UK. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 26262 Road Vehicles Functional Safety (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization: EN 50126 Railway applications - The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability. Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly, T., McDermid, J.: Safety case construction and reuse using patterns. In: Daniel, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP 1997), pp. 55–69. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goal Structuring Notation Working Group: Goal Structuring Notation Standard (2011). http://www.goalstructuringnotation.info/
  14. 14.
    Prokhorova, Y., Laibinis, L., Troubitsyna, E.: Facilitating construction of safety cases from formal models in Event-B. Information and Software Technology 60, 51–76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abrial, J.R.: Steam-Boiler control specification problem. In: Formal Methods for Industrial Applications, Specifying and Programming the Steam Boiler Control, London, UK, pp. 500–509. Springer (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prokhorova, Y., Troubitsyna, E., Laibinis, L.: A Case Study in Refinement-Based Modelling of a Resilient Control System. TUCS Technical Report 1086 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iliasov, A.: Use case scenarios as verification conditions: event-B/Flow approach. In: Troubitsyna, E.A. (ed.) SERENE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6968, pp. 9–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. Wiley Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iliasov, A., Romanovsky, A.: Structured coordination spaces for fault tolerant mobile agents. In: Cheraghchi, H.S., Lindskov Knudsen, J., Romanovsky, A., Babu, C.S. (eds.) Advanced Topics in Exception Handling Techniques. LNCS, vol. 4119, pp. 181–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gelernter, D.: Generative communication in linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 7(1), 80–112 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodin OSLC Adapter: (Using Instructions). http://iliasov.org/oslc/
  22. 22.
    Rushby, J.: Formalism in safety cases. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Making Systems Safer: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, pp. 3–17. Springer, Bristol (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hawkins, R., Habli, I., Kelly, T., McDermid, J.: Assurance cases and prescriptive software safety certification: a comparative study. Safety Science 59, 55–71 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Pohl, J.: Automating the Generation of Heterogeneous Aviation Safety Cases. NASA Contractor Report NASA/CR-2011-215983 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jee, E., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Assurance cases in model-driven development of the pacemaker software. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6416, pp. 343–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linas Laibinis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Troubitsyna
    • 1
  • Yuliya Prokhorova
    • 2
  • Alexei Iliasov
    • 3
  • Alexander Romanovsky
    • 3
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Space Systems FinlandEspooFinland
  3. 3.Newcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations