Advertisement

Safety Case Development with SBVR-Based Controlled Language

  • Yaping Luo
  • Mark van den BrandEmail author
  • Alexandre Kiburse
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 580)

Abstract

Safety case development is highly recommended by some safety standards to justify the safety of a system. The Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) is a popular approach to construct a safety case. However, the content of the safety case elements, such as safety claims, is in natural language. Therefore, a common understanding of the meaning of a safety claim may be difficult to reach. Consequently, the confidence of a safety claim can be misplaced. In this paper, we propose to use an SBVR-based controlled language to support safety case development. By using the controlled language, the ambiguities caused by natural language can be mitigated. Furthermore, an SBVR editor for building a vocabulary and a GSN editor with vocabulary support are developed. Finally, a case study has been carried out to show the benefits of using the controlled language for safety case construction.

Keywords

Safety case SBVR Controlled language Conceptual model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the FP7 programme under grant agreement n\(^\text {o}\) 289011 (OPENCOSS).

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Software Consideration in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification: RTCA DO-178C, December 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barry, M.R.: CertWare: a workbench for safety case production and analysis (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bishop, P., Bloomfield, R.: A methdology for safety case development. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds.) Industrial Perspectives of Safety-Critical Systems, pp. 194–203. Springer, London (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabot, J., Pau, R., Raventós, R.: From UML/OCL to SBVR specifications: a challenging transformation. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 417–440 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Tommasi, M., Corallo, A.: SBEAVER: a tool for modeling business vocabularies and business rules. In: Gabrys, B., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4253, pp. 1083–1091. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Graydon, P.J.: Towards a clearer understanding of context and its role in assurance argument confidence. In: Bondavalli, A., Di Giandomenico, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8666, pp. 139–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J., Graydon, P.: A new approach to creating clear safety arguments. In: Dale, A., Anderson, T. (eds.) Advances in Systems Safety, pp. 3–23. Springer, London (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO: ISO 26262: “Road Vehicles - Functional Safety” (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelly, T.: Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. Ph.D. thesis, University Of York (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly, T., Weaver, R.: The goal structuring notation - a safety argument notation. In: Proceedings of Dependable Systems and Networks 2004 Workshop on Assurance Cases (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: The epsilon transformation language. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo, Y., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Klabbers, M.: From conceptual models to safety assurance. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 195–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo, Y., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Klabbers, M.: A modeling approach to support safety assurance in the automotive domain. In: Selvaraj, H., Zydek, D., Chmaj, G. (eds.) Progress in Systems Engineering. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 330, pp. 339–345. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luo, Y., van den 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matsuno, Y.: D-Case Editor: A Typed Assurance Case Editor. University of Tokyo (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Nemuraite, L., Skersys, T., Sukys, A., Sinkevicius, E., Ablonskis, L.: VeTIS Tool for Editing and Transforming SBVR Business Vocabularies and Business Rules into UML & OCL Models (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG: SBVR: Semantics Of Business Vocabulary And Rules (version 1.2), Sepetember 2013Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Spreeuwenberg, S., Healy, K.A.: SBVR’s approach to controlled natural language. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5972, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taguchi, K.: Meta Modeling Approach to Safety Standard for Consumer Devices (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaping Luo
    • 1
  • Mark van den Brand
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandre Kiburse
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Klee GroupLe Plessis-RobinsonFrance

Personalised recommendations