[SystemSafety] Putting Agile into a longer perspective

[Martyn Thomas]

Surely that's the point of having a "set" of formalisms. Other engineers
use the appropriate formalism for whatever aspect of their requirements
or design they need to express, whether that's the required
specification of concrete or the power capacity of a cable.

Martyn

On 25/10/2019 12:56, Grazebrook, Alvery AN wrote:
> I think this discussion is missing a point - the real-world interfaces to systems are not just across software boundaries. So for software as an implementation technique, you probably can select a single "formalism set B", maybe an extension from Lustre or Event B or SPARK or something more data-oriented if you are implementing a database-oriented system. 
>
> "formalism set A" is much harder to pin down, because it needs to address a wide variety of topics, not just the data & logic. It may also need to represent geometry and loads, energy transfer, radio transmit/receive etc. I'm not aware of anything that even comes close. (And before anyone else mentions it, I don't think SysML comes close; neither in scope nor formalism)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20191025/e313fdb9/attachment-0001.sig>