Using Domain Specific Languages to Support Verification in the Railway Domain

  • Phillip James
  • Arnold Beckmann
  • Markus Roggenbach
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7857)


We explore the support of automatic verification via careful design of a domain specific language (DSL) in the context of algebraic specification. Formally a DSL is a loose specification the logical closure of which we regard as implicitly encoded “domain knowledge”. We systematically exploit this “domain knowledge” for automatic verification. We illustrate these ideas within the Railway Domain using the algebraic specification language Casl and an existing DSL, designed by Bjøerner, for modelling railways. Empirical evidence to the benefit of our approach is given in the form of the successful automatic verification of four railway track plans of real world complexity.


Model Check Domain Knowledge Automatic Verification Real World Complexity Metro System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bjørner, D.: Dynamics of Railway Nets: On an Interface between Automatic Control and Software Engineering. In: CTS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulanger, J., Gallardo, M.: Validation and verification of METEOR safety software. In: Allen, J., Hill, R.J., Brebbia, C.A., Sciutto, G., Sone, S. (eds.) Computers in Railways VII, vol. 7, pp. 189–200. WIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler, M.: Domain Specific Languages. Addison-Wesley (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groote, J.F., van Vlijmen, S., Koorn, J.: The Safety Guaranteeing System at Station Hoorn-Kersenboogerd. Technical report. Utrecht University (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haxthausen, A., Peleska, J.: A domain-oriented, model-based approach for construction and verification of railway control systems. In: Jones, C.B., Liu, Z., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Formal Methods and Hybrid Real-Time Systems. LNCS, vol. 4700, pp. 320–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James, P., Roggenbach, M.: Automatically verifying railway interlockings using SAT-based model checking. In: Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M., Roggenbach, M. (eds.) AVoCS 2010, vol. 35. ECEASST (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    James, P., Roggenbach, M.: Designing domain specific languages for verification: First steps. In: Hofner, P., McIver, A., Struth, G. (eds.) ATE 2011, vol. 760. CEUR (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., Lüttich, K.: The Heterogeneous Tool Set, Hets. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 519–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mosses, P.D. (ed.): Casl Reference Manual. LNCS, vol. 2960. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Winter, K.: Model checking railway interlocking systems. Australian Computer Science Communications 24, 303–310 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip James
    • 1
  • Arnold Beckmann
    • 1
  • Markus Roggenbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Swansea UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations