Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards

Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards

During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This pa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Galloway, A., Paige, R.F., Tudor, N.J., Weaver, R.A., Toyn, I., McDermid, J.
Format: Tagungsbericht
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Certification
Safety
Software testing
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 14 pp. Vol. 2
container_title
container_volume 2
creator Galloway, A.
Paige, R.F.
Tudor, N.J.
Weaver, R.A.
Toyn, I.
McDermid, J.
description During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology - the CLawZ toolset - and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405
format Conference Proceeding
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ieee_6IE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_1563405</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>1563405</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>1563405</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i90t-4dcbfaea875fb66cd88c6a7671f5cacb2f3ba1c2f10336bfcf3cbb6741d88c0a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1j9tKxDAURYMXcBj7AeJLfqD1nJ4maR6HeoUBBed9OEkTrWgrTRDn7x1xhA37YS02bCEuECpEsFfXq-euqgFUhUpTA-pILGpUqjQ12GNRWNPCPmQJDJ38M7TqTBQpvQEAQqu0ahaCnuZpivIryRxSHsYXOYwyvwbppzGH7yz3MHEMeSdT5rHnuU_n4jTyewrFoZdic3uz6e7L9ePdQ7dal4OFXDa9d5EDt0ZFp7Xv29ZrNtpgVJ69qyM5Rl9HBCLtoo_kndOmwV8TmJbi8m92CCFsP-fhg-fd9vCYfgA36Uhh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</source><creator>Galloway, A. ; Paige, R.F. ; Tudor, N.J. ; Weaver, R.A. ; Toyn, I. ; McDermid, J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Galloway, A. ; Paige, R.F. ; Tudor, N.J. ; Weaver, R.A. ; Toyn, I. ; McDermid, J.</creatorcontrib><description>During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology - the CLawZ toolset - and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2155-7195</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9780780393073</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 0780393074</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2155-7209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>Certification ; Safety ; Software testing</subject><ispartof>24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2005, Vol.2, p.14 pp. Vol. 2</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1563405$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,778,782,787,788,2054,4038,4039,27912,54907</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1563405$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Galloway, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paige, R.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tudor, N.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weaver, R.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toyn, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDermid, J.</creatorcontrib><title>Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards</title><title>24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference</title><addtitle>DASC</addtitle><description>During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology - the CLawZ toolset - and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.</description><subject>Certification</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Software testing</subject><issn>2155-7195</issn><issn>2155-7209</issn><isbn>9780780393073</isbn><isbn>0780393074</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><sourceid>6IE</sourceid><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><recordid>eNo1j9tKxDAURYMXcBj7AeJLfqD1nJ4maR6HeoUBBed9OEkTrWgrTRDn7x1xhA37YS02bCEuECpEsFfXq-euqgFUhUpTA-pILGpUqjQ12GNRWNPCPmQJDJ38M7TqTBQpvQEAQqu0ahaCnuZpivIryRxSHsYXOYwyvwbppzGH7yz3MHEMeSdT5rHnuU_n4jTyewrFoZdic3uz6e7L9ePdQ7dal4OFXDa9d5EDt0ZFp7Xv29ZrNtpgVJ69qyM5Rl9HBCLtoo_kndOmwV8TmJbi8m92CCFsP-fhg-fd9vCYfgA36Uhh</recordid><startdate>2005</startdate><enddate>2005</enddate><creator>Galloway, A.</creator><creator>Paige, R.F.</creator><creator>Tudor, N.J.</creator><creator>Weaver, R.A.</creator><creator>Toyn, I.</creator><creator>McDermid, J.</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>6IE</scope><scope>6IH</scope><scope>CBEJK</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>RIO</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2005</creationdate><title>Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards</title><author>Galloway, A. ; Paige, R.F. ; Tudor, N.J. ; Weaver, R.A. ; Toyn, I. ; McDermid, J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i90t-4dcbfaea875fb66cd88c6a7671f5cacb2f3ba1c2f10336bfcf3cbb6741d88c0a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Certification</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Software testing</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Galloway, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paige, R.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tudor, N.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weaver, R.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toyn, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDermid, J.</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plan (POP) 1998-present by volume</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore All Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plans (POP) 1998-present</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Galloway, A.</au><au>Paige, R.F.</au><au>Tudor, N.J.</au><au>Weaver, R.A.</au><au>Toyn, I.</au><au>McDermid, J.</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards</atitle><btitle>24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference</btitle><stitle>DASC</stitle><date>2005</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>2</volume><spage>14 pp. Vol. 2</spage><pages>14 pp. Vol. 2-</pages><issn>2155-7195</issn><eissn>2155-7209</eissn><isbn>9780780393073</isbn><isbn>0780393074</isbn><abstract>During software certification various forms of testing (e.g., unit, integration, regression) are undertaken. These testing processes are very important, but are also generally accepted as expensive, leading to a desire to replace testing with more cost-effective processes, where practicable. This paper is concerned with how such technology substitution can be justified, and presents a template for an argument that can be used to justify substitutions. It also instantiates the argument for a particular proof technology - the CLawZ toolset - and demonstrates how to argue for its safe substitution for testing in this context.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 2155-7195
ispartof 24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2005, Vol.2, p.14 pp. Vol. 2
issn 2155-7195
2155-7209
language eng
recordid cdi_ieee_primary_1563405
source IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings
subjects Certification
Safety
Software testing
title Proof vs testing in the context of safety standards
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T02%3A25%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ieee_6IE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Proof%20vs%20testing%20in%20the%20context%20of%20safety%20standards&rft.btitle=24th%20Digital%20Avionics%20Systems%20Conference&rft.au=Galloway,%20A.&rft.date=2005&rft.volume=2&rft.spage=14%20pp.%20Vol.%202&rft.pages=14%20pp.%20Vol.%202-&rft.issn=2155-7195&rft.eissn=2155-7209&rft.isbn=9780780393073&rft.isbn_list=0780393074&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/DASC.2005.1563405&rft_dat=%3Cieee_6IE%3E1563405%3C/ieee_6IE%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=1563405&rfr_iscdi=true