Representation of Safety Standards with Semantic Technologies Used in Industrial Environments

  • Jose Luis de la Vara
  • Álvaro Gómez
  • Elena Gallego
  • Gonzalo Génova
  • Anabel Fraga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)


Understanding and following safety standards with their text can be difficult. Ambiguity and inconsistency, among other issues, can easily arise. As a solution, several authors argue for the explicit representation of the standards with models, which can be created with semantic technologies such as ontologies. However, this possibility has received little attention. The few authors that have addressed it have also only dealt with a subset of safety standard aspects and have used technologies not usually applied for critical systems engineering. As a first step towards addressing these issues, this position paper presents our initial work on the representation of safety standards with Knowledge Manager, a tool used in industrial environments that exploits semantic technologies to manage domain information. The proposal also builds on prior work on the specification of safety compliance needs with a holistic generic metamodel. We describe how to use Knowledge Manager to specify the concepts and relationships of the metamodel for a given safety standard, and discuss the application and benefits of the corresponding representation.


Safety-critical system Safety standard Representation of safety standards Ontology Model Knowledge Manager 



The research leading to this paper has received funding from the AMASS project (H2020-ECSEL no. 692474; Spain’s MINECO ref. PCIN-2015-262).


  1. 1.
    de la Vara, J.L., et al.: An industrial survey on safety evidence change impact analysis practice. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 42(12), 1095–1117 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de la Vara, J.L., et al.: Model-based specification of safety compliance needs for critical systems: a holistic generic metamodel. Inf. Softw. Technol. 72, 16–30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallina, B., Szatmári, Z.: Ontology-based identification of commonalities and variabilities among safety processes. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds.) PROFES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9459, pp. 182–189. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_13 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jost, H., et al.: Towards a safer development of driver assistance systems by applying requirements-based methods. In: ITCS 2011, pp. 1144–1149 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luo, Y., Brand, M., Engelen, L., Favaro, J., Klabbers, M., Sartori, G.: Extracting models from ISO 26262 for reusable safety assurance. In: Favaro, J., Morisio, M. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7925, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38977-1_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nair, S., et al.: An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(7), 689–717 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nair, S., et al.: Evidence management for compliance of critical systems with safety standards: a survey on the state of practice. Inf. Softw. Technol. 60, 1–15 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The REUSE Company.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Luis de la Vara
    • 1
  • Álvaro Gómez
    • 1
  • Elena Gallego
    • 2
  • Gonzalo Génova
    • 1
  • Anabel Fraga
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidad Carlos III de MadridLeganesSpain
  2. 2.The REUSE CompanyLeganesSpain

Personalised recommendations