@inproceedings {SASSUR2013,
	title = {ARRL: a Criterion for Composable Safety and Systems Engineering},
	journal = {SAFECOMP 2013 - Workshop SASSUR (Next Generation of System Assurance Approaches for Safety-Critical Systems)},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {HAL},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {While safety engineering standards define rigorous and controllable processes for system development, safety standards{\textquoteright} differences in distinct domains are non-negligible. This paper focuses in particular on the aviation, automotive, and railway standards, all related to the transportation market. Many are the reasons for the said differences, ranging from historical reasons, heuristic and established practices, and legal frameworks, but also from the psychological perception of the safety risks. In particular 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 better into 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. In this paper we develop a novel 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.},
	author = {Verhulst, Eric and Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Bernhard H. C. {Sputh} and de Florio, Vincenzo},
	editor = {Kelly, T. and Jose Luis {de la Vara}}
}
@inproceedings {ICSSEA2013,
	title = {From Safety Integrity Level to Assured Reliability and Resilience Level for Compositional Safety Critical Systems},
	journal = {25th International Conference on Software \& Systems Engineering and their Applications (ICSSEA{\textquoteright}13)},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {INCOSE},
	type = {Conference},
	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. Moreover, ARRL can make a significant contribution to foster cross-domain safety engineering.},
	author = {Verhulst, Eric and Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Bernhard H. C. {Sputh} and de Florio, Vincenzo},
	editor = {Canals, A. and Najm, E. and Rault, J.C.}
}
@inproceedings {EmpiRE2013,
	title = {Specifying a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Engineering Technology: Challenges and Lessons Learned},
	journal = {3rd International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE 2013)},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {Evaluating requirements engineering technology is a challenging activity. It becomes even more difficult when having to evaluate the technology and thus to show its suitability in real settings, as access to industrial resources might be limited and the target domain might be complex or very sensitive. This paper reports on our experience in specifying an evaluation framework for requirements engineering technology. The technology aims to improve safety assurance and certification practices, and is being developed in the scope of a large-scale European research project. We focus on presenting the challenges encountered and the lessons learned while specifying the framework. These lessons summarise how we addressed, plan to address, or propose to address the challenges. This information can be useful for other researchers and practitioners that have to evaluate requirements engineering technology in general, and with industry and for safety assurance and certification in particular.},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Falessi, Davide and Verhulst, Eric},
	editor = {Daneva, M. and Conte, T. and Marczak, S. and Susi, A. and Pastor, O. and Marchetto, A.}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.simula.1562,
	title = {Towards a Model-Based Evolutionary Chain of Evidence for Compliance With Safety Standards},
	journal = {Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security SAFECOMP 2012 Workshops: Sassur. Proceedings},
	year = {2012},
	publisher = {Springer Berlin / Heidelberg},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {Compliance with safety standards can greatly increase the development cost and time of critical systems. Major problems arise when evolutions to a system entail reconstruction of the body of safety evidence. When changes occur in the development or certification processes, identification of the new evidence to provide, the evidence that is no longer adequate, or the evidence that can be reused poses some challenges. Therefore, practitioners need support to identify how a chain of evidence evolves as a result of the changes. Otherwise, execution of the above activities can be very costly, and it can even result in abandonment of certification efforts. This paper outlines a solution to deal with these challenges. The solution is based on the use of model-driven engineering technology, which has already been applied for safety certification but not from an evolutionary chain of evidence-based perspective. The paper also sets the background for developing the solution, describes real situations in which the solution can help industry, and discusses possible challenges for developing it. The solution will be developed as part of OPENCOSS, a research project on cross-domain evolutionary certification.},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Nair, Sunil and Verhulst, Eric and Studzizba, Janusz and Pepek, Piotr and Lambourg, Jerome and Sabetzadeh, Mehrdad},
	editor = {Peter Daniel Fra {Ortmeier}}
}
