SafetyMet: A Metamodel for Safety Standards

  • Jose Luis de la Vara
  • Rajwinder Kaur Panesar-Walawege
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8107)


In domains such as automotive, avionics, and railway, critical systems must comply with safety standards to allow their operation in a given context. Safety compliance can be an extremely demanding activity as practitioners have to show fulfilment of the safety criteria specified in the standards and thus that a system can be deemed safe. This is usually both costly and time consuming, and becomes even more challenging when, for instance, a system changes or aims to be reused in another project or domain. This paper presents SafetyMet, a metamodel for safety standards targeted at facilitating safety compliance. The metamodel consists of entities and relationships that abstract concepts common to different safety standards from different domains. Its use can help practitioners to show how they have followed the recommendations of a standard, and particularly in evolutionary or cross-domain scenarios. We discuss the benefits of the use of the metamodel, its limitations, and open issues in order to clearly present the aspects of safety compliance that are facilitated and those that are not addressed.


safety standard metamodel safety compliance safety assurance safety certification SafetyMet OPENCOSS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Syed Abdullah, N., Sadiq, S., Indulska, M.: A Compliance Management Ontology: Developing Shared Understanding through Models. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 429–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adedjouma, M.: Requirements engineering process according to automotive standards in a model-driven framework. PhD thesis, University of Paris Sud XI (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander, R., Kelly, T., Gorry, B.: Safety Lifecycle Activities for Autonomous Systems Development. In: 5th SEAS DTC Technical Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baufreton, P., et al.: Multi-domain comparison of safety standards. In: ERTS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernardi, S., et al.: A dependability profile within MARTE. SoSyM 10(3), 313–336 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. SoSyM 4(2), 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briand, L.C., et al.: Automated impact analysis of UML models. Journal of Systems and Software 79(3), 339–352 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    CENELEC: Railway applications - Communications, signalling and processing systems - Software for railway control and protection systems - EN 50128 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleland-Huang, J., et al. (eds.): Software and Systems Traceability. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Heimdahl, M., Huffman Hayes, J., Lutz, R., Maeder, P.: Trace Queries for Safety Requirements in High Assurance Systems. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 179–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Pohl, J.: AdvoCATE: An assurance case automation toolset. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 8–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de la Vara, J.L., Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Sánchez, J., Giorgini, P.: COMPRO: A Methodological Approach for Business Process Contextualisation. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 132–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de la Vara, J.L., Nair, S., Verhulst, E., Studzizba, J., Pepek, P., Lambourg, J., Sabetzadeh, M.: Towards a Model-Based Evolutionary Chain of Evidence for Compliance with Safety Standards. In: Ortmeier, F., Daniel, P. (eds.) SAFECOMP Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7613, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DNV: Qualification of New Technology - DNV-RP-A203 (2012) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emmerich, W., et al.: Managing Standards Compliance. IEEE TSE 25(6), 826–851 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falessi, D., et al.: Planning for safety evidence collection. IEEE Softw. 29(3), 64–70 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A systematic review of goal-oriented requirements management frameworks for business process compliance. In: RELAW 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giblin, C., et al.: Regulations Expressed As Logical Models (REALM). In: JURIX 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordon, D.G., Breaux, T.D.: Reconciling multi-jurisdictional requirements. In: RE 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.W.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: EDOC 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graydon, P.J., et al.: Arguing Conformance. IEEE Software 29(3), 50–57 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project. Addison-Wesley (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Habli, I., Kelly, T.: A Model-Driven Approach to Assuring Process. In: ISSRE 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    IEC: Functional safety of electrical / electronic / programmable electronic safety-related systems (IEC 61508) (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ingolfo, S., et al.: Arguing regulatory compliance of software requirements. Data & Knowledge Engineering (accepted paper) (2012) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO: International Standard Road vehicles — Functional safety - ISO/DIS 26262 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katta, V., Stålhane, T.: A Conceptual Model of Traceability for Safety Systems. In: CSDM 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koschmider, A., de la Vara, J.L., Sánchez, J.: Measuring the Progress of Reference Model-Based Business Process Modeling. In: BPSC 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krammer, M., Armengaud, E., Bourroihh, Q.: Method Library Framework for Safety Standard Compliant Process Tailoring. In: SEAA 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuschnerus, D., et al.: A UML Profile for the Development of IEC 61508 Compliant Embedded Software. In: ERTS 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mayr, A., Plösch, R., Saft, M.: Towards an Operational Safety Standard for Software: Modelling IEC 61508 Part 3. In: ECBS 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Musat, D., Castaño, V., Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Garbajosa, J.: MATURE: A Model Driven bAsed Tool to Automatically Generate a langUage That suppoRts CMMI Process Areas spEcification. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 48–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nair, S., et al.: The State of the Practice on Evidence Management for Compliance with Safety Standards. Simula Research Laboratory, Technical Report (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nair, S., et al.: Classification, Structuring, and Assessment of Evidence For Safety: A Systematic Literature Review. In: ICST 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ncube, C., Maiden, N.A.M.: PORE: Procurement-Oriented Requirements Eng. Method for the Component-Based Systems Engineering Development Paradigm. In: CBSE 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nekvi, M. R.I., Madhavji, N.H., Ferrari, R., Berenbach, B.: Impediments to Requirements-Compliance. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 30–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nejati, S., et al.: A SysML-Based Approach to Traceability Management and Design Slicing of Safety Certification. Information & Software Technology 54(6), 569–590 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    OMG: Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM) – Version 1.0 (2013), (accessed March 3, 2013)
  40. 40.
    Panesar-Walawege, R.K., et al.: Characterizing the Chain of Evidence for Software Safety Cases: A Conceptual Model Based on the IEC 61508 Standard. In: ICST 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Panesar-Walawege, R.K., et al.: Using Model-Driven Engineering for Managing Safety Evidence: Challenges, Vision and Experience. In: WOSOCER 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Panesar-Walawege, R.K., et al.: Supporting the verification of compliance to safety standards via model-driven engineering. Info. Softw. Technol. (accepted paper, 2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Papazoglou, M.P.: Making Business Processes Compliant to Standards & Regulations. In: EDOC 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pohl, K.: Requirements Engineering. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    RTCA: DO-178C - Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment (2012)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sadiq, W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling Control Objectives for Business Process Compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sannier, N., Baudry, B.: Toward multilevel textual requirements traceability using model-driven engineering and information retrieval. In: MoDRE 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Pourshahid, A.: A Systematic Review of Compliance Measurement Based on Goals and Indicators. In: Salinesi, C., Pastor, O. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2011. LNBIP, vol. 83, pp. 228–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sojer, D., Knoll, A., Buckl, C.: Synthesis of Diagnostic Techniques Based on an IEC 61508-aware Metamodel. In: SIES 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stallbaum, H., Rzepka, M.: Toward DO-178B-compliant Test Models. In: MoDeVVa 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sun, L., Kelly, T.: Elaborating the Concept of Evidence in Safety Cases. In: SSS 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Taromirad, M., Paige, R.: Agile Requirements Traceability Using Domain-Specific Modelling Languages. In: XM 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wenzel, S.: Unique identification of elements in evolving software models. SoSyM (accepted paper) (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zoughbi, G., Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: Modeling safety and airworthiness (RTCA DO-178B) information. SoSyM 10(3), 337–367 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Luis de la Vara
    • 1
  • Rajwinder Kaur Panesar-Walawege
    • 1
  1. 1.Certus Centre for Software V&V, Simula Research LaboratoryLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations