RE: [sc] sc: languages



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

stuart.palin(at)baesystems.com
Date: Wed 12 Jun 2002 - 11:11:07 BST


> I agree with Peter. Why isn't this a standard requirement by 
> assessors and regulators?

Because standards lag behind invention and are rapidly overtaken by
technology.

Because safety-cases are varied and depend on the safety requirements that
need to be proved.  This requires assessors who can think about and
understand (and meaningfully challenge) safety-arguments; not box tickers.

The absence (or non-use) of specific techniques should cause assessors to
look harder - but they should assess (strangely enough) the evidence
presented, not make judgements about design decisions (that task would more
likely be the responsibility of the reviewers).

Regards
--
Stuart Palin
(usual disclaimers about speaking for myself not my employer)


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view