checsdm: A Method for Ensuring Consistency in Heterogeneous Safety-Critical System Design

Safety-critical systems are highly heterogeneous, combining different characteristics. Effectively designing such systems requires a complex modelling approach that deals with diverse components (e.g., mechanical, electronic, software)-each having its own underlying domain theories and vocabularies-...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE transactions on software engineering 2021-12, Vol.47 (12), p.2713-2739
Hauptverfasser: Paz, Andres, Boussaidi, Ghizlane El, Mili, Hafedh
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2739
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2713
container_title IEEE transactions on software engineering
container_volume 47
creator Paz, Andres
Boussaidi, Ghizlane El
Mili, Hafedh
description Safety-critical systems are highly heterogeneous, combining different characteristics. Effectively designing such systems requires a complex modelling approach that deals with diverse components (e.g., mechanical, electronic, software)-each having its own underlying domain theories and vocabularies-as well as with various aspects of the same component (e.g., function, structure, behaviour). Furthermore, the regulated nature of such systems prescribes the objectives for their design verification and validation. This paper proposes checsdm , a systematic approach, based on Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), for assisting engineering teams in ensuring consistency of heterogeneous design of safety-critical systems. The approach is developed as a generic methodology and a tool framework , that can be applied to various design scenarios involving different modelling languages and different design guidelines. The methodology comprises an iterative three-phased process. The first phase, elicitation , aims at specifying requirements of the heterogeneous design scenario. Using the proposed tool framework, the second phase, codification , consists in building a particular tool set that supports the heterogeneous design scenario and helps engineers in flagging consistency errors for review and eventual correction. The third phase, operation , applies the tool set to actual system designs. Empirical evaluation of the work is presented through two executions of the checsdm approach for the specific cases of a design scenario involving a mix of UML, Simulink and Stateflow, and a design scenario involving a mix of AADL, Simulink and Stateflow. The operation phase of the first case was performed over three avionics systems and the identified inconsistencies in the design models of these systems were compared to the results of a fully manual verification carried out by professional engineers. The evaluation also includes an assessment workshop with industrial practitioners to examine their perceptions about the approach. The empirical validation indicates the feasibility and "cost-effectiveness" of the approach. Inconsistencies were identified in the three avionics systems with a greater recall rate over the manual verification. The assessment workshop shows the practitioners found the approach easy to understand and gave an overall likelihood of adoption within the context of their work.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/TSE.2020.2966994
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_RIE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1109_TSE_2020_2966994</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>8960313</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>2608557218</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-f925033a14622934f4d2877190fd7fe3fc0af886af5d608a9b346a381c67f8753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kDFPwzAQRi0EEqWwI7FYYk4527Fjs1WhUKQihpaBKTLJuU3VxsVOhvx7UrViuuW976RHyD2DCWNgnlbL2YQDhwk3ShmTXpARM8IkQnK4JCMAoxMptbkmNzFuAUBmmRyR73KDZaz2z3RKP7Dd-Io6H-isiV2omzXNfRPr2GJT9rRu6BxbDH6NDfou0qV12PZJHuq2Lu2OLvuB3NMXjPW6uSVXzu4i3p3vmHy9zlb5PFl8vr3n00VScsPaxBkuQQjLUsW5EalLK66zjBlwVeZQuBKs01pZJysF2pofkSorNCtV5nQmxZg8nnYPwf92GNti67vQDC8LPghSZpzpgYITVQYfY0BXHEK9t6EvGBTHgMUQsDgGLM4BB-XhpNSI-I9ro0AwIf4ALYZrew</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2608557218</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>checsdm: A Method for Ensuring Consistency in Heterogeneous Safety-Critical System Design</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</source><creator>Paz, Andres ; Boussaidi, Ghizlane El ; Mili, Hafedh</creator><creatorcontrib>Paz, Andres ; Boussaidi, Ghizlane El ; Mili, Hafedh</creatorcontrib><description>Safety-critical systems are highly heterogeneous, combining different characteristics. Effectively designing such systems requires a complex modelling approach that deals with diverse components (e.g., mechanical, electronic, software)-each having its own underlying domain theories and vocabularies-as well as with various aspects of the same component (e.g., function, structure, behaviour). Furthermore, the regulated nature of such systems prescribes the objectives for their design verification and validation. This paper proposes checsdm , a systematic approach, based on Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), for assisting engineering teams in ensuring consistency of heterogeneous design of safety-critical systems. The approach is developed as a generic methodology and a tool framework , that can be applied to various design scenarios involving different modelling languages and different design guidelines. The methodology comprises an iterative three-phased process. The first phase, elicitation , aims at specifying requirements of the heterogeneous design scenario. Using the proposed tool framework, the second phase, codification , consists in building a particular tool set that supports the heterogeneous design scenario and helps engineers in flagging consistency errors for review and eventual correction. The third phase, operation , applies the tool set to actual system designs. Empirical evaluation of the work is presented through two executions of the checsdm approach for the specific cases of a design scenario involving a mix of UML, Simulink and Stateflow, and a design scenario involving a mix of AADL, Simulink and Stateflow. The operation phase of the first case was performed over three avionics systems and the identified inconsistencies in the design models of these systems were compared to the results of a fully manual verification carried out by professional engineers. The evaluation also includes an assessment workshop with industrial practitioners to examine their perceptions about the approach. The empirical validation indicates the feasibility and "cost-effectiveness" of the approach. Inconsistencies were identified in the three avionics systems with a greater recall rate over the manual verification. The assessment workshop shows the practitioners found the approach easy to understand and gave an overall likelihood of adoption within the context of their work.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-5589</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-3520</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2020.2966994</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IESEDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: IEEE</publisher><subject>Avionics ; Codification ; Consistency ; Design ; design guidelines ; Design methodology ; DO-178C ; Engineers ; Evaluation ; Guidelines ; heterogeneous design ; Iterative methods ; Model-driven engineering ; Modelling ; Object oriented modeling ; Safety ; Safety critical ; safety-critical systems ; Software engineering ; Software packages ; System effectiveness ; Systems design ; Unified modeling language ; Verification ; Workshops</subject><ispartof>IEEE transactions on software engineering, 2021-12, Vol.47 (12), p.2713-2739</ispartof><rights>Copyright IEEE Computer Society 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-f925033a14622934f4d2877190fd7fe3fc0af886af5d608a9b346a381c67f8753</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-f925033a14622934f4d2877190fd7fe3fc0af886af5d608a9b346a381c67f8753</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0743-769X ; 0000-0001-6145-774X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8960313$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,796,27924,27925,54758</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8960313$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Paz, Andres</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boussaidi, Ghizlane El</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mili, Hafedh</creatorcontrib><title>checsdm: A Method for Ensuring Consistency in Heterogeneous Safety-Critical System Design</title><title>IEEE transactions on software engineering</title><addtitle>TSE</addtitle><description>Safety-critical systems are highly heterogeneous, combining different characteristics. Effectively designing such systems requires a complex modelling approach that deals with diverse components (e.g., mechanical, electronic, software)-each having its own underlying domain theories and vocabularies-as well as with various aspects of the same component (e.g., function, structure, behaviour). Furthermore, the regulated nature of such systems prescribes the objectives for their design verification and validation. This paper proposes checsdm , a systematic approach, based on Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), for assisting engineering teams in ensuring consistency of heterogeneous design of safety-critical systems. The approach is developed as a generic methodology and a tool framework , that can be applied to various design scenarios involving different modelling languages and different design guidelines. The methodology comprises an iterative three-phased process. The first phase, elicitation , aims at specifying requirements of the heterogeneous design scenario. Using the proposed tool framework, the second phase, codification , consists in building a particular tool set that supports the heterogeneous design scenario and helps engineers in flagging consistency errors for review and eventual correction. The third phase, operation , applies the tool set to actual system designs. Empirical evaluation of the work is presented through two executions of the checsdm approach for the specific cases of a design scenario involving a mix of UML, Simulink and Stateflow, and a design scenario involving a mix of AADL, Simulink and Stateflow. The operation phase of the first case was performed over three avionics systems and the identified inconsistencies in the design models of these systems were compared to the results of a fully manual verification carried out by professional engineers. The evaluation also includes an assessment workshop with industrial practitioners to examine their perceptions about the approach. The empirical validation indicates the feasibility and "cost-effectiveness" of the approach. Inconsistencies were identified in the three avionics systems with a greater recall rate over the manual verification. The assessment workshop shows the practitioners found the approach easy to understand and gave an overall likelihood of adoption within the context of their work.</description><subject>Avionics</subject><subject>Codification</subject><subject>Consistency</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>design guidelines</subject><subject>Design methodology</subject><subject>DO-178C</subject><subject>Engineers</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>heterogeneous design</subject><subject>Iterative methods</subject><subject>Model-driven engineering</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Object oriented modeling</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Safety critical</subject><subject>safety-critical systems</subject><subject>Software engineering</subject><subject>Software packages</subject><subject>System effectiveness</subject><subject>Systems design</subject><subject>Unified modeling language</subject><subject>Verification</subject><subject>Workshops</subject><issn>0098-5589</issn><issn>1939-3520</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kDFPwzAQRi0EEqWwI7FYYk4527Fjs1WhUKQihpaBKTLJuU3VxsVOhvx7UrViuuW976RHyD2DCWNgnlbL2YQDhwk3ShmTXpARM8IkQnK4JCMAoxMptbkmNzFuAUBmmRyR73KDZaz2z3RKP7Dd-Io6H-isiV2omzXNfRPr2GJT9rRu6BxbDH6NDfou0qV12PZJHuq2Lu2OLvuB3NMXjPW6uSVXzu4i3p3vmHy9zlb5PFl8vr3n00VScsPaxBkuQQjLUsW5EalLK66zjBlwVeZQuBKs01pZJysF2pofkSorNCtV5nQmxZg8nnYPwf92GNti67vQDC8LPghSZpzpgYITVQYfY0BXHEK9t6EvGBTHgMUQsDgGLM4BB-XhpNSI-I9ro0AwIf4ALYZrew</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>Paz, Andres</creator><creator>Boussaidi, Ghizlane El</creator><creator>Mili, Hafedh</creator><general>IEEE</general><general>IEEE Computer Society</general><scope>97E</scope><scope>RIA</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0743-769X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6145-774X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>checsdm: A Method for Ensuring Consistency in Heterogeneous Safety-Critical System Design</title><author>Paz, Andres ; Boussaidi, Ghizlane El ; Mili, Hafedh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-f925033a14622934f4d2877190fd7fe3fc0af886af5d608a9b346a381c67f8753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Avionics</topic><topic>Codification</topic><topic>Consistency</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>design guidelines</topic><topic>Design methodology</topic><topic>DO-178C</topic><topic>Engineers</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>heterogeneous design</topic><topic>Iterative methods</topic><topic>Model-driven engineering</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Object oriented modeling</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Safety critical</topic><topic>safety-critical systems</topic><topic>Software engineering</topic><topic>Software packages</topic><topic>System effectiveness</topic><topic>Systems design</topic><topic>Unified modeling language</topic><topic>Verification</topic><topic>Workshops</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Paz, Andres</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boussaidi, Ghizlane El</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mili, Hafedh</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 2005-present</collection><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 1998-Present</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>IEEE transactions on software engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Paz, Andres</au><au>Boussaidi, Ghizlane El</au><au>Mili, Hafedh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>checsdm: A Method for Ensuring Consistency in Heterogeneous Safety-Critical System Design</atitle><jtitle>IEEE transactions on software engineering</jtitle><stitle>TSE</stitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2713</spage><epage>2739</epage><pages>2713-2739</pages><issn>0098-5589</issn><eissn>1939-3520</eissn><coden>IESEDJ</coden><abstract>Safety-critical systems are highly heterogeneous, combining different characteristics. Effectively designing such systems requires a complex modelling approach that deals with diverse components (e.g., mechanical, electronic, software)-each having its own underlying domain theories and vocabularies-as well as with various aspects of the same component (e.g., function, structure, behaviour). Furthermore, the regulated nature of such systems prescribes the objectives for their design verification and validation. This paper proposes checsdm , a systematic approach, based on Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), for assisting engineering teams in ensuring consistency of heterogeneous design of safety-critical systems. The approach is developed as a generic methodology and a tool framework , that can be applied to various design scenarios involving different modelling languages and different design guidelines. The methodology comprises an iterative three-phased process. The first phase, elicitation , aims at specifying requirements of the heterogeneous design scenario. Using the proposed tool framework, the second phase, codification , consists in building a particular tool set that supports the heterogeneous design scenario and helps engineers in flagging consistency errors for review and eventual correction. The third phase, operation , applies the tool set to actual system designs. Empirical evaluation of the work is presented through two executions of the checsdm approach for the specific cases of a design scenario involving a mix of UML, Simulink and Stateflow, and a design scenario involving a mix of AADL, Simulink and Stateflow. The operation phase of the first case was performed over three avionics systems and the identified inconsistencies in the design models of these systems were compared to the results of a fully manual verification carried out by professional engineers. The evaluation also includes an assessment workshop with industrial practitioners to examine their perceptions about the approach. The empirical validation indicates the feasibility and "cost-effectiveness" of the approach. Inconsistencies were identified in the three avionics systems with a greater recall rate over the manual verification. The assessment workshop shows the practitioners found the approach easy to understand and gave an overall likelihood of adoption within the context of their work.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/TSE.2020.2966994</doi><tpages>27</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0743-769X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6145-774X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 0098-5589
ispartof IEEE transactions on software engineering, 2021-12, Vol.47 (12), p.2713-2739
issn 0098-5589
1939-3520
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1109_TSE_2020_2966994
source IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)
subjects Avionics
Codification
Consistency
Design
design guidelines
Design methodology
DO-178C
Engineers
Evaluation
Guidelines
heterogeneous design
Iterative methods
Model-driven engineering
Modelling
Object oriented modeling
Safety
Safety critical
safety-critical systems
Software engineering
Software packages
System effectiveness
Systems design
Unified modeling language
Verification
Workshops
title checsdm: A Method for Ensuring Consistency in Heterogeneous Safety-Critical System Design
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T16%3A36%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_RIE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=checsdm:%20A%20Method%20for%20Ensuring%20Consistency%20in%20Heterogeneous%20Safety-Critical%20System%20Design&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20transactions%20on%20software%20engineering&rft.au=Paz,%20Andres&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2713&rft.epage=2739&rft.pages=2713-2739&rft.issn=0098-5589&rft.eissn=1939-3520&rft.coden=IESEDJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/TSE.2020.2966994&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_RIE%3E2608557218%3C/proquest_RIE%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2608557218&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=8960313&rfr_iscdi=true