Modeling the Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3 Standard Using a Formal Requirements Engineering Approach

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno FotsoEmail author
  • Marc Frappier
  • Régine Laleau
  • Amel Mammar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10817)


This paper presents a specification of the hybrid ERTMS/ETCS level 3 standard in the framework of the case study proposed for the 6th edition of the ABZ conference. The specification is based on the method and tools, developed in the ANR FORMOSE project, for the modeling and formal verification of critical and complex system requirements. The requirements are specified with SysML/KAOS goal diagrams and are automatically translated into B System specifications, in order to obtain the architecture of the formal specification. Domain properties are specified by ontologies with the SysML/KAOS domain modeling language, based on OWL and PLIB. Their automatic translation completes the structural part of the formal specification. The only part of the specification, which must be manually completed, is the body of events. The construction is incremental, based on the refinement mechanisms existing within the involved methods. The formal specification of the case study is composed of seven refinement levels and all the proofs have been discharged with the Rodin prover.


Requirements engineering Goal diagrams Domain modeling Ontologies SysML/KAOS B System 



This work is carried out within the framework of the FORMOSE project [2] funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR). It is also partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).


  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.: Modeling in Event-B - System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANR-14-CE28-0009: Formose ANR project (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butler, M., Jones, C.B., Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E. (eds.): Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems. LNCS, vol. 4157. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  4. 4.
    ClearSy: Atelier B: B System (2014).
  5. 5.
    EEIG ERTMS Users Group: Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3: Principles. Ref. 16E042 Version 1A, July 2017Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gnaho, C., Semmak, F., Laleau, R.: Modeling the impact of non-functional requirements on functional requirements. In: Parsons, J., Chiu, D. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8697, pp. 59–67. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoang, T.S., Butler, M., Reichl, K.: The hybrid ERTMS/ETCS level 3 case study. In: ABZ, pp. 1–3 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering - From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: a model checker for B. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mammar, A., Frappier, M., Tueno, S., Laleau, R.: An Event-B Model of the ERTMS/ETCS Level 3 Standard (2018).
  11. 11.
    Mammar, A., Laleau, R.: On the use of domain and system knowledge modeling in goal-based event-B specifications. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 325–339. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mashkoor, A., Jacquot, J.: Utilizing Event-B for domain engineering: a critical analysis. Requir. Eng. 16(3), 191–207 (2011). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matoussi, A., Gervais, F., Laleau, R.: A goal-based approach to guide the design of an abstract Event-B specification. In: ICECCS 2011, pp. 139–148. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicola, F., van Henri, H., Laura, A., Maarten, B.: ERTMS level 3: the game-changer. In: IRSE News View, p. 232, April 2017Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Openflexo: Openflexo project (2015).
  16. 16.
    Pierra, G.: The PLIB ontology-based approach to data integration. In: Jacquart, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society. IIFIP, vol. 156, pp. 13–18. Springer, Boston, MA (2004). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deploy Project: Rodin Atelier B Provers Plug-in (2017).
  18. 18.
    Sengupta, K., Hitzler, P.: Web ontology language (OWL). In: Alhajj, R., Rokne, J. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining, pp. 2374–2378. Springer, New York (2014). Scholar
  19. 19.
    SYSTEREL: Rodin SMT Solvers Plug-in (2017).
  20. 20.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Towards using ontologies for domain modeling within the SysML/KAOS approach. In: 25th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference on IEEE Proceedings of MoDRE Workshop (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Formal Representation of SysML/KAOS Domain Models. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1712.07406, December 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: The SysML/KAOS Domain Modeling Approach. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1710.00903, September 2017Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: The SysML/KAOS Domain Modeling Language (Tool and Case Studies) (2017).
  24. 24.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: SysML/KAOS Approach on the Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3 Case Study (2018).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno Fotso
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marc Frappier
    • 1
  • Régine Laleau
    • 2
  • Amel Mammar
    • 3
  1. 1.Université de Sherbrooke, GRILSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Université Paris-Est Créteil, LACLCréteilFrance
  3. 3.Télécom SudParis, SAMOVAR-CNRSEvryFrance

Personalised recommendations