A Personal Opinion Survey on Process Compliance Checking in the Safety Context

1. Bertram, D.: Likert Scales Are the Meaning of Life. CPSC 681-Topic Report (2006). http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf

2. Borg, M., de la Vara, J.L., Wnuk, K.: Practitioners’ perspectives on change impact analysis for safety-critical software – a preliminary analysis. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 346–358. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_28

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

3. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B.: Formal contract logic based patterns for facilitating compliance checking against ISO 26262. In: 1st Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance, pp. 65–72 (2017)

   Google Scholar 

4. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Ul Muram, F.: Enabling compliance checking against safety standards from SPEM 2.0 Process Models. In: Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 45–49 (2018)

   Google Scholar 

5. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Ul Muram, F.: Transforming SPEM 2.0-compatible process models into models checkable for compliance. In: Stamelos, I., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2018. CCIS, vol. 918, pp. 233–247. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00623-5_16

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

6. Castellanos Ardila, J., Gallina, B., Governatori, G.: Lessons learned while formalizing ISO 26262 for compliance checking. In: 2nd Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance, pp. 1–12 (2018)

   Google Scholar 

7. Davis, F.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985)

   Google Scholar 

8. De La Vara, J., Borg, M., Wnuk, K., Moonen, L.: An industrial survey of safety evidence change impact analysis practice. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 42(12), 1095–1117 (2016)

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. Diebold, P., Scherr, S.: Software process models vs descriptions: what do practitioners use and need? J. Softw.: Evol. Process 29(11), 1–13 (2017)

   Google Scholar 

10. Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(02n03), 181–216 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Javed, M., Gallina, B.: Get EPF Composer back to the future: a trip from Galileo to Photon after 11 years. In: EclipseCon (2018)

    Google Scholar 

12. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Personal opinion surveys. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 63–92. Springer, London (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

13. Nair, S., De La Vara, J., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(7), 689–717 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. Nair, S., De La Vara, J., Sabetzadeh, M., Falessi, D.: Evidence management for compliance of critical systems with safety standards: a survey on the state of practice. Inf. Softw. Technol. 60, 1–15 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Nair, S., Kelly, T., Jørgensen, M.: A report on the state-of-the-practice of safety evidence assessment. Technical report (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references