The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.03 - May-June (2012 vol.29)
pp: 50-57
Patrick Graydon , University of York
Ibrahim Habli , University of York
Richard Hawkins , University of York
Tim Kelly , University of York
John Knight , University of Virginia
ABSTRACT
Conformance to software standards plays an essential role in establishing confidence in high-integrity software systems. However, standards conformance suffers from uncertainty about its meaning for three reasons: because requirements of the standard must be interpreted to fit the specifics of the application; because standards can deliberately leave options for developers; and because goal-based software standards exist that simply specify the high-level principles of software assurance without prescribing a specific means of compliance. The overall effect of these issues is that when conformance to a software assurance standard is claimed, there can be a lack of clarity as to exactly what the claim entails. This article draws on principles and practice from the domain of safety argument construction to describe the use of explicit and structured conformance arguments to help address this problem.
INDEX TERMS
standards, software and system safety, software engineering
CITATION
Patrick Graydon, Ibrahim Habli, Richard Hawkins, Tim Kelly, John Knight, "Arguing Conformance", IEEE Software, vol.29, no. 3, pp. 50-57, May-June 2012, doi:10.1109/MS.2012.26
REFERENCES
1. CAP 670, Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2010.
2. 61508-3, Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems — Part 3: Software Requirements, Int'l Electrotechnical Commission, 2010.
3. DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, RTCA, 1992.
4. S.L. Pfleeger, N. Fenton, and N. Page, “Evaluating Software Engineering Standards,” Computer, Sept. 1994, pp. 71–79.
5. T. Bray et al., eds., Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, 5th ed., World Wide Web Consortium, 2008; www.w3.org/TR/2008PER-xml-20080205.
6. Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits, but Faces Considerable Challenges, report GAO-06-392, US Government Accountability Office, 2006.
7. T. Kelly, “Arguing Safety—A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases,” doctoral dissertation, Dept. Computer Science, Univ. of York, 1998.
8. ASCAD: The Adelard Safety Case Development Manual, Adelard, 1998.
9. Argumentation Metamodel (ARM), beta 1, Object Management Group, 2010; www.omg.org/spec/ARM/1.0Beta1.
28 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool