SAFECOMP 2010: Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security pp 317-331 | Cite as
A UML Profile for Requirements Analysis of Dependable Software
Abstract
At Safecomp 2009, we presented a foundation for requirements analysis of dependable software. We defined a set of patterns for expressing and analyzing dependability requirements, such as confidentiality, integrity, availability, and reliability. The patterns take into account random faults as well as certain attacks and therefore support a combined safety and security engineering.
In this paper, we demonstrate how the application of our patterns can be tool supported. We present a UML profile allowing us to express the different dependability requirements using UML diagrams. Integrity conditions are expressed using OCL. We provide tool support based on the Eclipse development environment, extended with an EMF-based UML tool, e.g., Papyrus UML. We illustrate how to use the profile to model dependability requirements of a cooperative adaptive cruise control system.
Keywords
Object Constraint Language Problem Frame Dependability Requirement Eclipse Modeling Framework Cooperative Adaptive Cruise ControlPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (August 2005), http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/public/expert/
- 2.Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 (September 2006), http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/public/expert/
- 3.Eclipse - An Open Development Platform (May 2008), http://www.eclipse.org/
- 4.Eclipse Modeling Framework Project (EMF) (May 2008), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/
- 5.Papyrus UML Modelling Tool (January 2010), http://www.papyusuml.org/
- 6.Charfi, A., Gamatié, A., Honoré, A., Dekeyser, J.-L., Abid, M.: Validation de modèles dans un cadre d’IDM dédié à la conception de systèmes sur puce. In: 4èmes Jounées sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles, IDM 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
- 7.Hall, J.G., Rapanotti, L., Jackson, M.: Problem frame semantics for software development. Software and System Modeling 4(2), 189–198 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hatebur, D., Heisel, M.: A foundation for requirements analysis of dependable software. In: Buth, B., Rabe, G., Seyfarth, T. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5775, pp. 311–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Hatebur, D., Heisel, M.: A UML profile for requirements analysis of dependable software (technical report). Technical report, Universität Duisburg-Essen (2010), http://swe.uni-due.de/techrep/depprofile.pdf
- 10.Hatebur, D., Heisel, M., Schmidt, H.: A pattern system for security requirements engineering. In: Werner, B. (ed.) IEEE Transactions Proceedings of the International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (AReS), pp. 356–365. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.International Electrotechnical Commission IEC. Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safty-relevant systems (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Jackson, M.: Problem Frames. Analyzing and structuring software development problems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Lencastre, M., Botelho, J., Clericuzzi, P., Araújo, J.: A meta-model for the problem frames approach. In: WiSME 2005: 4th Workshop in Software Modeling Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Seater, R., Jackson, D., Gheyi, R.: Requirement progression in problem frames: deriving specifications from requirements. Requirements Engineering 12(2), 77–102 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.UML Revision Task Force. OMG Object Constraint Language: Reference (May 2006), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/06-05-01.pdf
- 16.UML Revision Task Force. OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML) (November 2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.1/
- 17.UML Revision Task Force. OMG Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure (February 2009), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/09-02-02.pdf