Hi Bruce.
Can you briefly explain to me the concept of 'consistency' in aspice?
On the internet I have seen 'aspice consistency, as just being careful to use the same terminology across all SDLC levels, e.g., yoiu use the term 'component' to mean the same at all SDLC levels.
But elsewhere I have been told that 'aspice consistency' means that when a specific requirement is planned to be implemented by a specific architecture/design element, it actually is implemented by that design element--- and not instead implemented by some other design element than the one intended.
Thanks
Avi
I would say consistency is way more than use pure syntactic consistency (using the same terms). The Automotive SPICE Guidelines_1st Edition 2017 specifically mentions the semantic consistency on page 38:
One example can be for instance that you have a requirement which is inconsistent with the dynamic behaviour of the system as specified by a statechart, see below. In this case the system is reacting to the evMoveTo event even though it is not in Operational. Here you have syntactic consistency (using the correct terms) but inconsistent semantics. Therefore the only way you can "prove" consistency in ASPICE is by reviews (again from ASPICE guidelines):
My understanding is the it is the consistent use of terminology in different development phases. This is important because of the traceability requirements in ASPICE and if you need to make sense of trace links, you need to use terminology in the same way across the traced elements.