Re: [SystemSafety] Your Q on tools use

From: RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE) < >
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:32:33 +0200


Thanks for this answer.

This quite exactly my appreciation of the situation ...

Bertrand RICQUE
Program Manager, Optronics and Defense Division  
T +33 (0)1 58 11 96 82
M +33 (0)6 87 47 84 64
23 avenue Carnot
91300 MASSY - FRANCE
http://www.sagem-ds.com  

-----Original Message-----
From: Stachour, Paul D CCS [mailto:Paul.Stachour_at_xxxxxx Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:19 PM
To: RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE) Subject: RE: Your Q on tools use

Bernard,

    A personal answer (not for distribution) of your questions on tool use, from my perspective. I have marked my notes with ">>". Our product supports the "Function Block" language specified by IEC 61131-3, with a number or additional Gates/FucntionBlocks which we and our customers find useful.

 --The ideas and opinions expressed in this message
 --are solely those of the message originator(s). 
 --The opinions of the author(s) expressed
 --herein do not necessarily state or reflect those
 --of Detector Electronics, or of United Technologies
 --Corporation. They may not be further disseminated
 --without permission. They may not be used 
 --for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Paul D. Stachour
Software Quality Assurance
Detector Electronics Corporation
A UTC Fire & Security Company
6901 West 110th Street, Bloomington, MN 55438 USA 952-941-5665, x8409
Paul.Stachour_at_xxxxxx
www.det-tronics.com

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:32 AM
To: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: [External] Re: [SystemSafety] Qualifying SW as "proven in use" [Measuring Software]

Dear all,

I would like to have your opinion on the following question.

Why do all these nice and fancy tools, such as SQALE and many others, are only available for ADA and C++ and not for the IEC61131-3 languages used in process and manufacturing industries ?

Is it because:
* These languages are not considered sufficiently "seriously safe" by "serious persons" to deserve academic works and tools ?
>> I know that we have 2 forms of some of the fuction blocks.
>> They are the "standard" ones, and the "Safe" ones.
>> The Safe ones will detect certain errors that the standard ones do not.
>> For example, a safe "ADD" will detect overflow,
>> while the standard one will not.
>> 61131-3 standard is incomplete (my opinion) on sematics of FB.
* It is not possible to access these languages because they are proprietary artefacts not open to academic works ?
>> Yes, our langages and its extensions are propritary.
* The designers and suppliers of these languages don't allow access to the academic and software community ?
>> I suspect that access would be allowed under a non-disclosure.
>> I suspect that such would not be acceptable to the academics.
* The academic and software community don't identify the need ?
>> No data from me here.

* The final intended users are not sensitive to theissue ?
>> Most of our end-users are not programmer types.
>> They don't get semantic defintions of our FBs.
>> They don't ask us to put such in user manuals.
* Competent enough to adress the issue ?
>> Suspect only a very few are competent.
>> Suspect almost no software engineers.
* Any work on the languages is useless because the OS below is even more unknown and not accessible ?
>> Diagree here. I can (somewhat) verify that ADD works OK,
>> even if don't have access to the undetrlying OS / HW.
>> I do such by writing test-cases similar to what HW
>> designers do to test their HW, including corner-cases.
* Anything else ?

>> Nope.

>> J'espere que cette est utile pour vous.

#
" Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit le contenu. Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."



" This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system." #

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Jul 02 2013 - 17:33:01 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 22 2019 - 05:17:05 CET