|
RESAFE
- International Workshop on Software Reuse and Safety
Thursday, 15
June 2006, Torino, Italy
Held in conjunction with the
Ninth
International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR 9)
Results of the RESAFE 2006 Workshop
RESAFE 2006 was attended by representatives from research
institutions, large public institutions such as the European Space Agency, and
large private institutions such as Cisco Systems. In addition to position
paper presentations, a session was held on the elaboration of current issues
and priorities for future work. Participants in this final session were
-
Bill Frakes, Virginia Tech, USA
-
Peter Knauber, University of Mannheim, Germany
-
Mike Tortorella, Rutgers University, USA
-
Maria Garcia Reinaldos, European Space Agency,
Netherlands
-
Nematollah Bidokhti, Cisco Systems, USA
-
Davide Falessi, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Italy
-
Gregory Kulczycki, Virginia Tech, USA
-
John Favaro, Consulenza Informatica, Italy
-
Davide Moretti, European Space Agency, Netherlands
Reuse and Safety -- Issues
The table below shows twenty issues related to reuse and safety ranked on the
basis of perceived importance. The importance rankings were derived using a
nominal group technique [1]. Each session attendee was asked to give a list of
issues. These were combined into a single list. Each attendee was then asked
to rate the importance of each issue on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being most
important.
[1] Michael Brassard, DianeRitter, The Memory Jogger II, Project
Management Institute; 1st edition (January 15, 1994), ISBN: 1879364441.
| |
ISSUE |
WEIGHT (1-5) |
| 1 |
Reusability assessment in terms of safety |
32 |
| 2 |
Treat as a formal system with carefully defined terms and consistent use
throughout |
30 |
| 3 |
Promote "Design For Reliability" and "Design for Safety" as key enablers |
30 |
| 4 |
More focus on requirements analysis |
30 |
| 5 |
How to represent context |
30 |
| 6 |
Understand better about the implications of using components in new contexts |
29 |
| 7 |
Define the problem for different types of reuse (e.g. carry-over reuse,
component based reuse, generative reuse) |
29 |
| 8 |
Full testing of interfaces between the component and the rest of the system |
26 |
| 9 |
Relate the 3C model to the problem |
25 |
| 10 |
Full traceability of requirements to code |
25 |
| 11 |
Architectural definition for reuse |
22 |
| 12 |
Demonstrate the risk factors for the software to be reused |
21 |
| 13 |
How to assure that the contextual specification is correct and complete |
21 |
| 14 |
Can the use of mathematical models shed light on the problem? |
20 |
| 15 |
Understand which parts of the problem are "validation" problems and which
are "verification" problems |
19 |
| 16 |
Analysis of the development lifecycle of the reused component |
19 |
| 17 |
How to make reusable components that contain only the minimum amount of
unused functionality in any use (to attack the "dead code" problem) |
19 |
| 18 |
Use well-defined software development standards |
18 |
| 19 |
What makes COTS reusable? |
16 |
| 20 |
Eliminate the emotional content |
14 |
|
