组合安全和系统工程的标准:指定组件的规范方法

E. Verhulst, B. Sputh
{"title":"组合安全和系统工程的标准:指定组件的规范方法","authors":"E. Verhulst, B. Sputh","doi":"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Safety engineering standards define rigorous and controllable processes for system development. Nevertheless, safety standards differences from distinct domains are non-negligible. We focus in particular on the aviation, automotive and railway standards, all related to the transportation market. We argue that the Safety Integrity Levels are not sufficient to be used as a top level requirement for developing a safety critical system. We argue that Quality of Service is a more generic criterion that takes the trustworthiness as perceived by users into deeper account. In addition safety engineering standards provide very little guidance on how to compose safe systems from components, while this is the established engineering practice. We develop a novel normative concept called Assured Reliability and Resilience Level as a criterion that takes the industrial practice into account and show how it complements the Safety Integrity Level concept. An important difference is that it requires a component to carry a contract and the supporting evidence. ARRL can make a significant contribution to foster cross-domain safety engineering.","PeriodicalId":332420,"journal":{"name":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ARRL: A criterion for compositional safety and systems engineering: A normative approach to specifying components\",\"authors\":\"E. Verhulst, B. Sputh\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688861\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Safety engineering standards define rigorous and controllable processes for system development. Nevertheless, safety standards differences from distinct domains are non-negligible. We focus in particular on the aviation, automotive and railway standards, all related to the transportation market. We argue that the Safety Integrity Levels are not sufficient to be used as a top level requirement for developing a safety critical system. We argue that Quality of Service is a more generic criterion that takes the trustworthiness as perceived by users into deeper account. In addition safety engineering standards provide very little guidance on how to compose safe systems from components, while this is the established engineering practice. We develop a novel normative concept called Assured Reliability and Resilience Level as a criterion that takes the industrial practice into account and show how it complements the Safety Integrity Level concept. An important difference is that it requires a component to carry a contract and the supporting evidence. ARRL can make a significant contribution to foster cross-domain safety engineering.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688861\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

安全工程标准为系统开发定义了严格和可控的过程。然而,不同领域的安全标准差异是不可忽视的。我们特别关注与运输市场相关的航空、汽车和铁路标准。我们认为,安全完整性等级不足以作为开发安全关键系统的顶级要求。我们认为服务质量是一个更通用的标准,它将用户感知到的可信度考虑得更深。此外,安全工程标准对如何由部件组成安全系统提供很少的指导,而这是既定的工程实践。我们开发了一种新的规范概念,称为确保可靠性和弹性水平,作为考虑工业实践的标准,并展示了它如何补充安全完整性水平概念。一个重要的区别是,它要求组件携带合同和支持证据。ARRL可以为促进跨域安全工程做出重大贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ARRL: A criterion for compositional safety and systems engineering: A normative approach to specifying components
Safety engineering standards define rigorous and controllable processes for system development. Nevertheless, safety standards differences from distinct domains are non-negligible. We focus in particular on the aviation, automotive and railway standards, all related to the transportation market. We argue that the Safety Integrity Levels are not sufficient to be used as a top level requirement for developing a safety critical system. We argue that Quality of Service is a more generic criterion that takes the trustworthiness as perceived by users into deeper account. In addition safety engineering standards provide very little guidance on how to compose safe systems from components, while this is the established engineering practice. We develop a novel normative concept called Assured Reliability and Resilience Level as a criterion that takes the industrial practice into account and show how it complements the Safety Integrity Level concept. An important difference is that it requires a component to carry a contract and the supporting evidence. ARRL can make a significant contribution to foster cross-domain safety engineering.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信