Abstract

We propose to formally model requirements and interoperability constraints among components of a railway system to enable automated, incremental analysis and validation mechanisms. The goal is to provide the basis for a technology that can drastically reduce the time and cost for certification by making it possible to trace changes from requirements via design to implementation.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.: Modeling in Event-B — System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deliverable 1.2 of project FP7-231620 (HATS): Full ABS Modeling Framework, March 2011. http://www.hats-project.eu
  4. 4.
    The ABS Language Specification (2016). http://abs-models.org/documentation/manual/
  5. 5.
    Albert, E., Arenas, P., Flores-Montoya, A., Genaim, S., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Martin-Martin, E., Puebla, G., Román-Díez, G.: SACO: static analyzer for concurrent objects. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds.) TACAS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 562–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Albert, E., Arenas, P., Gómez-Zamalloa, M., Wong, P.Y.H.: aPET: a test case generation tool for concurrent objects. In: Meyer, B., Baresi, L., Mezini, M. (eds.) Joint Meeting European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE, St Petersburg, pp. 595–598. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albert, E., de Boer, F.S., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Schlatte, R., Tapia Tarifa, S.L., Wong, P.Y.H.: Formal modeling of resource management for cloud architectures: an industrial case study using Real-Time ABS. J. Service-Oriented Comput. Appl. 8(4), 323–339 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apel, S., Kästner, C.: An overview of feature-oriented software development. J. Object Technol. 8(5), 49–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bubel, R., Montoya, A.F., Hähnle, R.: Analysis of executable software models. In: Bernardo, M., Damiani, F., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B., Schaefer, I. (eds.) SFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8483, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07317-0_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Pelevina, M.: Fully abstract operation contracts. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 120–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45231-8_9 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butler, M.: Incremental design of distributed systems with event-b. In: Broy, M., Sitou, W., Hoare, T. (eds.) Engineering Methods and Tools for Software Safety and Security: Marktoberdorf Summer School 2008, pp. 131–160. IOS Press (2009). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/266910/. Chap. 4
  12. 12.
    Butler, M.J., Yadav, D.: An incremental development of the Mondex system in Event-B. Formal Aspects Comput. 20(1), 61–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deutsche Bahn Netz AG, Frankfurt, Germany: Fahrdienstvorschrift Richtlinie 408, December 2015. http://fahrweg.dbnetze.com/fahrweg-de/nutzungsbedingungen/regelwerke/betriebl_technisch/eiu_interne_regeln_ril_408.html
  14. 14.
    Din, C.C., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: KeY-ABS: a deductive verification tool for the concurrent modelling language ABS. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9195, pp. 517–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Din, C.C., Owe, O.: Compositional reasoning about active objects with shared futures. Formal Aspects Comput. 27(3), 551–572 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Din, C.C., Tapia Tarifa, S.L., Hähnle, R., Johnsen, E.B.: History-based specification and verification of scalable concurrent and distributed systems. In: Butler, M., Conchon, S., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICFEM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9407, pp. 217–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fantechi, A., Flammini, F., Gnesi, S.: Formal methods for railway control systems. STTT 16(6), 643–646 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fulton, N., Mitsch, S., Quesel, J.-D., Völp, M., Platzer, A.: KeYmaera X: an axiomatic tactical theorem prover for hybrid systems. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9195, pp. 527–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giachino, E., Laneve, C., Lienhardt, M.: A framework for deadlock detection in core abs. Softw. Syst. Model. 1–36 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hähnle, R.: The abstract behavioral specification language: a tutorial introduction. In: Giachino, E., Hähnle, R., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) Formal Methods for Components and Objects. LNCS, vol. 7866, pp. 1–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40615-7_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henrio, L., Rochas, J.: From modelling to systematic deployment of distributed active objects–extended version. Research Report \(<\)hal-01299817\(>\), I3S, April 2016Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hentschel, M., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: Symbolic execution debugger (SED). In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 255–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_21 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    James, P., Moller, F., Nga, N.H., Roggenbach, M., Schneider, S.A., Treharne, H.: Techniques for modelling and verifying railway interlockings. STTT 16(6), 685–711 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnsen, E.B., Hähnle, R., Schäfer, J., Schlatte, R., Steffen, M.: ABS: a core language for abstract behavioral specification. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) Formal Methods for Components and Objects. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 142–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25271-6_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Nowak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-Oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report, CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Platzer, A., Quesel, J.-D.: European train control system: a case study in formal verification. In: Breitman, K., Cavalcanti, A. (eds.) ICFEM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5885, pp. 246–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10373-5_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reichl, K., Fischer, T., Tummeltshammer, P.: Using formal methods for verification and validation in railway. In: Aichernig, B.K., Furia, C.A. (eds.) Tests and Proofs. LNCS, vol. 9762, pp. 3–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaefer, I., Bettini, L., Bono, V., Damiani, F., Tanzarella, N.: Delta-oriented programming of software product lines. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: CSP theorems for communicating B machines. Formal Aspects Comput. 17(4), 390–422 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Serbanescu, V., Azadbakht, K., de Boer, F.S., Nagarajagowda, C., Nobakht, B.: A design pattern for optimizations in data intensive applications using ABS and JAVA 8. Concurrency Comput. Pract. Experience 28(2), 374–385 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Setyautami, M.R.A., Azurat, A., Hähnle, R., Muschevici, R.: A UML profile for delta-oriented programming to support software product line engineering. In: International Software Product Line Conference. ACM Press (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sun, P., Dutilleul, S.C., Bon, P.: A model pattern of railway interlocking system by Petri nets. In: International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 442–449. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thüm, T., Schaefer, I., Hentschel, M., Apel, S.: Family-based deductive verification of software product lines. In: Ostermann, K., Binder, W. (eds.) Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2012, Dresden, Germany, pp. 11–20. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Albert, E., Muschevici, R., Proença, J., Schäfer, J., Schlatte, R.: The ABS tool suite: modelling, executing and analysing distributed adaptable object-oriented systems. STTT 14(5), 567–588 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations