The System Design Life Cycle

  • Nikolaos Priggouris
  • Adeline Silva
  • Markus Shawky
  • Magnus Persson
  • Vincent Ibanez
  • Joseph Machrouh
  • Nicola Meledo
  • Philippe Baufreton
  • Jason Mansell Rementeria
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter focuses on a generic process for developing (safety-critical) systems. After a reminder concerning the current development process including the safety aspects, the “Cesar-proposed” development process, based on multi-views and a component-based approach, is highlighted.

Keywords

Architecture Design Variation Point Abstraction Level Software Product Line Architecture Analysis 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 14.
    P.G. Bassett, Framing Software Reuse: Lessons from the Real World (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1997)Google Scholar
  2. 18.
    D. Benavides, S. Trujillo, P. Trinidad, On the modularization of feature models, in First European Workshop on Model Transformation, Rennes, France, 2005Google Scholar
  3. 31.
    M. Cifaldi, N. Priggouris, O. Laurent, V. Ibanez et al. Architecture modelling methodology for RTP V3. Technical report D_SP3_R2.3_M3, The CESAR consortium, 2011Google Scholar
  4. 34.
    Compositional variability management, http://www.cvm-framework.org/
  5. 35.
    J.O. Coplien, Multi-paradigm Design for C + + (Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston, 1999)Google Scholar
  6. 39.
    W. Damm, H. Hungar, S. Henkler, I. Stierand, B. Josko, P. Reinkemeier, A. Baumgart, M. Bueker, T. Gezgin, G. Ehmen, R.Weber, Spes2020 architecture modeling, 2010. SPES2020 Deliverable D3.5Google Scholar
  7. 42.
    V. Debruyne, F. Simonot-Lion, Y. Trinquet, EAST-ADL: an architecture description language, in Architecture Description Languages. IFIP The International Federation for Information Processing (Springer, Boston, 2005), pp. 181–195Google Scholar
  8. 47.
    Eclipse process library, http://www.eclipse.org/epf/
  9. 49.
    EN 50128:2001, Railway Applications – Software for Railway Control and Protections Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 53.
    Engineering software architectures, processes and platforms for system-families (1999), http://www.esi.es/esaps/
  11. 54.
  12. 60.
    Fact-based maturity through institutionalisation lessons-learned and involved exploration of system-family engineering, http://www.esi.es/Families/
  13. 65.
    From concepts to application in system-family engineering, http://www.esi.es/Cafe/
  14. 81.
  15. 85.
    IEC, IEC 61508 Edition 2.0, Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2010)Google Scholar
  16. 86.
    IEEE, Software architecture: introducing ieee standard 1471, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
  17. 87.
    Information technology for european advancement, http://www.itea2.org/
  18. 99.
    M. Khlif, O. Tahan, M. Shawky, CO-SImulation trace analysis (COSITA) tool for vehicle electronic architecture diagnosability analysis, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (IEEE, Piscataway, 2010), pp. 572–578Google Scholar
  19. 101.
    P. Kruchten, The 4 + 1 view model of architecture. IEEE Softw. 12, 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 115.
    Meta object facility, http://www.omg.org/mof/
  21. 116.
    B. Meyer, Applying design by contract. IEEE Comput. 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 117.
    B. Meyer, Object-oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 122.
    OMG, Software and systems process engineering metamodel specification (SPEM) Apr 2008, http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/
  24. 125.
    Papyrus unified modeller project, http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/papyrus/
  25. 126.
    K. Pohl, G. Böckle, F. van der Linden, Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques (Springer, New York, 2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 128.
    R.S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (McGraw Hill, Boston/ London, 2001)Google Scholar
  27. 134.
    M. Sampath, R. Sengupta, S. Lafortune, K. Sinnamohideen, D. Teneketzis, Failure diagnosis using discrete-event models. Control Syst. Technol. IEEE Trans. 4(2), 105–124 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 140.
    SINTEF, Generic language and tool for variability modeling (2010), http://modelingwizards.isti.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SINTEF-A13505-Report.pdf
  29. 141.
    Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Certification Considerations for Highly Integrated or Complex Aircraft Systems, 1 Nov 1996. Product Code: ARP4754Google Scholar
  30. 149.
    N. Storey, Safety Critical Computer Systems (Addison Wesley, Harlow/Reading, 1996)Google Scholar
  31. 152.
    Technical Committee ISO/TC 22 Subcommittee SC 3 (ed.), ISO/WD26262: Road Vehicles – Functional Safety. (Automotive Standards Committee of the German Institute for Standardization, 2009)Google Scholar
  32. 153.
    Tecnalia, Product line unified modeller (plum), http://www.esi.es/plum/index.php
  33. 162.
    UK Ministry of Defence, MOD architecture framework (MODAF), www.modaf.org.uk/
  34. 164.
  35. 165.
    Unified method framework concept, http://epf.eclipse.org/wikis/
  36. 168.
    US Department of Defense, DoD architecture framework, http://dodcio.defense.gov/dodaf20.aspx

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos Priggouris
    • 1
  • Adeline Silva
    • 2
  • Markus Shawky
    • 3
  • Magnus Persson
    • 5
  • Vincent Ibanez
    • 4
  • Joseph Machrouh
    • 4
  • Nicola Meledo
    • 4
  • Philippe Baufreton
    • 6
  • Jason Mansell Rementeria
    • 7
  1. 1.Hellenic Aerospace Industry S.A.TanagraGreece
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueParisFrance
  4. 4.Thales GroupNeuilly-sur-Seine CedexFrance
  5. 5.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  6. 6.SAGEM Defense SecuriteParisFrance
  7. 7.Fundación European Software InsituteDonostia – San SebastiánSpain

Personalised recommendations