Re: [ELISA Safety Architecture WG] What’s in a name?

Paul Albertella


This is a tweaked repost of to a wider audience, as I inadvertently replied to the Safety Architecture WG only.

On 06/05/2021 19:00, John MacGregor wrote:
This should all be sorted out in a document rather than an email and presented sometime, somewhere.  Although it extends the idea of an ontology, I think that the ontology group (or in new-ELISA terminology committee) should be responsible for unifying our view of the system development phases and their products.  I don't know where they're going to store their documents, but I'd ultimately put the document there.
@Paul, what do you think?
I agree that we need a document (or set of documents) to articulate a common model for this, which can be used to describe the various different approaches to system development that could be taken when using Linux as part of a product, and make it easier to apply. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was talking about an ontology.

Starting with architecture as a first concept and building out from there feels like a good approach.

I envisaged this documentation being developed and published in a GitHub repo, to allow any ELISA contributor with an interest to review it and provide input. However, I suggest that we start with a smaller group to discuss this and come up with some preliminary material to share for wider review, and perhaps present at the next Workshop.

Perhaps we could have a kick-off call immediately following the Dev Process WG session on Thursday? I can set up the Zoom call.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.