mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A method to formally evaluate safety case arguments against a system architecture model
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering. (IS)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1119-611X
System Safety CrossControl AB.
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering. (IS)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6352-4368
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering. (IS)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0904-3712
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, ISSREW, 2012, p. 337-342Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

For a large and complex safety-critical system, where safety is ensured by a strict control over many properties, the safety information is structured into a safety case. As a small change to the system design may potentially affect a large section of the safety argumentation, a systematic method for evaluating the impact of system changes on the safety argumentation would be valuable. We have chosen two of the most common notations: the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) for the safety argumentation and the Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) for the system architecture model. In this paper, we address the problem of impact analysis by introducing the GSN and AADL Graph Evaluation (GAGE) method that maps safety argumentation structure against system architecture, which is also a prerequisite for successful composition of modular safety cases. In order to validate the method, we have implemented the GAGE tool that supports the mapping between the GSN and AADL notations and highlight changes in impact on the argumentation. © 2012 IEEE.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. p. 337-342
Series
Proceedings - 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, ISSREW 2012
Keywords [en]
AADL, GSN, Safety argumentation
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-18237DOI: 10.1109/ISSREW.2012.101ISI: 000318043300075Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84873391312ISBN: 9780769549286 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-18237DiVA, id: diva2:605810
Conference
23rd IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, ISSREW 2012, 27 November 2012 through 30 November 2012, Dallas, TX
Available from: 2013-02-15 Created: 2013-02-15 Last updated: 2013-12-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Björnander, StefanGraydon, PatrickLundqvist, Kristina

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Björnander, StefanLand, RikardGraydon, PatrickLundqvist, KristinaConmy, Philippa
By organisation
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 66 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf