[SystemSafety] Omitting future considerations from safety cases

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2022-09-28 00:00 , Daniel Grivicic wrote:
> 
> I seek your advice on being silent on future system capabilities within a safety case.
A safety case is presaged in any case on the functionality of the system. A safety case for the use 
of Concorde as a passenger transport aircraft is obviously different from a safety case for a 
Concorde as an exhibit in the main hangar for visitors to IWM Duxford. (The latter, BTW, is not 
completely trivial, but it is not usually called a "safety case", and it is usually performed by an 
insurance assessor.)

So there has to be some way of listing functions and the environments in which those functions are 
executed, as well as transitions between those environments and so on, on which the safety case is 
presaged. That list may be smaller or larger, as desired (by somebody). But it surely should be 
specified in some way.

PBL

Prof. i.R. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20220928/f6a8e796/attachment-0001.sig>