Advertisement

Ontology-Based Identification of Commonalities and Variabilities Among Safety Processes

  • Barbara GallinaEmail author
  • Zoltán Szatmári
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9459)

Abstract

Safety standards impose requirements on the process used to develop safety-critical systems. For certification purposes, manufacturers have to properly interpret and meet these requirements, which exhibit commonalities and variabilities. However, since different terms are used to state them, the comparative work aimed at manually identifying and managing these commonalities and variabilities is hard, time-consuming, and costly. In this paper, we propose to solve this problem by creating ontology-based models of safety standards and automate the comparative work. Then, we show how the result of this comparative study can be exploited to semi-automate the generation of safety-oriented process line models. To illustrate our solution, we apply it to portions of ISO 26262 and EN 50126. Finally, we draw our conclusions and future work.

Keywords

Process Safety Ontology-Based Identification Hazard Analysis And Risk Assessment (HARA) Software Process Engineering Meta-model (SPEM) Related Ontology Concepts 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) project SYNOPSIS-SSF-RIT10-0070.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferrell, T., Ferrell, U.: Assuring avionics – updating the approach for the 21st century. In: Bondavalli, A., Ceccarelli, A., Ortmeier, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8696, pp. 375–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloomfield, R., Netkachova, K., Stroud, R.: Security-informed safety: if it’s not secure, it’s not safe. In: Gorbenko, A., Romanovsky, A., Kharchenko, V. (eds.) SERENE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8166, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallina, B., Sljivo, I., Jaradat, O.: Towards a safety-oriented process line for enabling reuse in safety critical systems development and certification. In: Post-Proceedings of the 35th Software Engineering Workshop (SEW). IEEE, October 2012Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO26262: Road vehicles Functional safety. International Standard (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    BS EN50126: Railway applications: The specification and demonstration of Reliability. Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model (SPEM), v2.0. Full Specification formal/08-04-01 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. http://www.w3.org/tr/owl2-syntax/
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Pataricza, A., Gönczy, L., Kövi, A., Szatmári, Z.: A methodology for standards-driven metamodel fusion. In: Bellatreche, L., Mota Pinto, F. (eds.) MEDI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6918, pp. 270–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallina, B., Lundqvist, K., Forsberg, K.: THRUST: a method for speeding up the creation of process-related deliverables. In: Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference, DASC (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden
  2. 2.Resiltech SrlPontederaItaly

Personalised recommendations