|
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
Adams, E.N. Optimizing preventive service of software products. IBM J Res. Develop, 28, I (1984), 2-14.
|
| |
3
|
Anderson, T., Barrett, P.A., Halliwell, D.N. and Moulding, M.R. Software fault tolerance: An evaluation IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-11, 12, (1985), 1502-1510.
|
| |
4
|
Avizienis, A. and Kelly, J.P.J. Fault tolerance by design diversity: Concepts and experiments. IEEE Comput. 17 (1984), 67-80.
|
| |
5
|
Barwise. J. Mathematical proofs of computer system correctness. Not. AMS 36 (Sept. 1989), 844-851.
|
| |
6
|
Bishop, P.G. and Pullen, F.D. PODS revisited-A study of software failure behavior. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on fault- Tolerant Computing, (Tokyo, Japan, 1988). pp.1-8.
|
| |
7
|
|
| |
8
|
de Groot< M.H. Optimal Statistical Decisions. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
|
| |
9
|
Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, AC 25, 1309-IA.
|
| |
10
|
Garrick. B.J. The approach to risk analysis in three industries: Nuclear power, space systems, and chemical process. Reliability Eng. Syst. Safety 23 (1988), 195-205.
|
| |
11
|
Giloth. F.K. and prantzen, K.D. can the freliability of digital telecommunication switching systems be predicted and measured In proceedings of the Thirteenth International symposium on Fault-tolerant Computin, (Milano, Italy, 1983), pp. 392-397.
|
| |
12
|
Knight, J.C. and Leveson. N.G. An empircal study of failure probabilities in multi-version software. In proceedings of the Sixteenth International symposium on fault-Tolerant Computing (Vienna, Austria, 1986), pp. 165- 170.
|
 |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
Littlewood, B. Limits toevaluation of software dependabillity. In software Reliabilityy and Metrics (Proceedings of Seventh Annual CSR Conference, Garmisch-Partenkirchen), N. Fenton and B. Littlewood. Eds. Elsevier, London. pp. 81-110.
|
| |
15
|
|
| |
16
|
Miller, D.R. The role of statistical modeling and inferernce insoftware quality assurance. In Software Certification Elsevier, Barking, Essex, UK, 1989, pp. 135-152.
|
 |
17
|
|
| |
18
|
Perrow, C. Normal Accidents--Living with High Risk Technologies, Basic Books, New York, 1984.
|
| |
19
|
Powell. D. Failure mode and assumption coverage. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Aymposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing (Boston. Mass., 1992), pp. 186-395.
|
| |
20
|
RTCA Committee SC-176, Software Considerations in Airbornbe systems and Equipment Certification. Draft DO-178-B.7, July 27, 1992. RTCA, (Requirements and Technical Concepts for Aviation), 1140 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1020, Washington DC 20036.
|
| |
21
|
RTCA/EUROCAE: (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronauticds and European Organization for Civil Aviation Electonics). Software Consideratopms om Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, Doc. DO178A/EUROCAE ED-12A. 1985.
|
| |
22
|
Wainwright, N. Software aspects of digital computer based protection systems. Assessment Guide AG3, Nuclear Installations Inspectrorate, Issue 1 (draft), 1991.
|
| |
23
|
Wright, G. and Ayton, P. Judgemental Forecasting. Wiley and Sons, Chocjester. UK. 1987.
|
CITED BY 21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phyllis Frankl , Dick Hamlet , Bev Littlewood , Lorenzo Strigini, Choosing a testing method to deliver reliability, Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, p.68-78, May 17-23, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julian M. Bass , Adrian R. Browne , Mohamed S. Hajji , Derek G. Marriott , Peter R. Croll , Peter J. Fleming, Automating the Development of Distributed Control Software, IEEE Parallel & Distributed Technology: Systems & Technology, v.2 n.4, p.9-19, December 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVIEW
"Richard A. Baker, Jr. : Reviewer"
Littlewood and Strigini present a depressing summary of the use
of software in ultrahigh-reliability applications. In situations where
software must have a probability of failure less than
10-9
more...
|