Re: [SystemSafety] Technical Terms in Standards [was: Modelling and coding guidelines....]

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:17:35 +0100

On 2016-02-27 11:45 , Michael J. Pont wrote:
> .... in ISO 26262 .... defined terms (from Part 1) are not clearly identified at
> later points in the text.
>
> In a legal contract (for example) we would usually start by defining terms such as “Dual-Point
> Failure” at the start of the document (with the initial capitals, or a different font, etc, used in
> the definition). References to these terms that appeared later in the document would then be easily
> identified (because Dual-Point Failure, for example, would always appear in the same format).
>
> This doesn’t happen in ISO 26262 – and I think we should try to change this in the next edition.

If my experience with IEC standards is any guide, that will be hard. IEC has has some relatively strenuous guidelines for how text appears (yes, I know, you wouldn't know it, would you?), and I don't think such a move would conform. Any change in the guidelines would have to be across all standards; it won't go per individual standard. I imagine ISO is similar.

Others on this list, such as Ingo Rolle, are far more familiar with this textual requirements for IEC standards than I am. I don't think there is anyone on this list equally familiar with ISO, is there?

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Sat Feb 27 2016 - 13:17:52 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Feb 23 2019 - 10:17:08 CET