Advertisement

A Story About Formal Methods Adoption by a Railway Signaling Manufacturer

  • Stefano Bacherini
  • Alessandro Fantechi
  • Matteo Tempestini
  • Niccolò Zingoni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4085)

Abstract

This paper reports the story of the introduction of formal methods in the development process of a railway signaling manufacturer. The first difficulty for a company is due to the many different formal methods proposals around; we show how this difficulty has been addressed and how the choice of a reference formal specification notation and of the related tools has been driven by many external factors related to the specific application domain, to the company policies, to european regulations. Cooperation with University has been fundamental in this process, which is now at the stage in which internal acceptance of the chosen formalisms and tools is established.

Keywords

Model Check Formal Method Test Case Generation Railway Infrastructure Railway Operation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bacherini, S., Bianchi, S., Capecchi, L., Becheri, C., Felleca, A., Fantechi, A., Spinicci, E.: Modelling a railway signalling system using SDL. In: Proceedings 4th Symposium on Formal Methods for Railway Operation and Control Systems (FORMS 2003), Budapest. L’Harmattan Hongrie (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banci, M., Becucci, M., Fantechi, A., Spinicci, E.: Validation Coverage for a Component-based SDL model of a Railway Signalling System. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 116, 99–111 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becucci, M., Fantechi, A., Giromini, M., Spinicci, E.: A Comparison between Handwritten and Automatic Generation of C Code from SDL using Static Analysis. Software: Practice&Experience 35(114), 1317–1347 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellsberger, J., Hogrefe, D., Sarma, A.: SDL - Formal Object-oriented Language for Communicating Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. EN 50128, Railway Applications Communications, Signaling and Processing Systems Software for Railway Control and Protection Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fantechi, A., Spinicci, E.: Modelling and Validating a Multiple-configuration railway signalling system using SDL. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 82(6) (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foschi, U., Giuliani, M., Morzenti, A., Pradella, M., San Pietro, P.: The role of formal methods in software procurement for the railway transportation industry. In: Proceedings 4th Symposium on Formal Methods for Railway Operation and Control Systems (FORMS 2003), Budapest. L’Harmattan Hongrie (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: On the fly model checking of communicating UML State Machines. In: Second ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research Management and Applications (SERA 2004), Los Angeles, USA, 5-7 May (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamon, G., Rushby, J.M.: An Operational Semantics for Stateflow. In: Wermelinger, M., Margaria-Steffen, T. (eds.) FASE 2004. LNCS, vol. 2984, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamad, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., Shtull-Trauring, A., Trakhtenbrot, M.: STATEMATE: A Working Environment for the Development of Complex Reactive Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(4), 403–414 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    König, N.H., Einer, S.: The Euro-Interlocking formalized functional requirements approach (EIFFRA). In: Proceedings 4th Symposium on Formal Methods for Railway Operation and Control Systems (FORMS 2003), Budapest. L’Harmattan Hongrie (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krogh, B., Spencer, C.: Formal Verification of Stateflow Diagrams Using SMV, http://www.ece.cmu.edu/webk/sf2smv/
  15. 15.
    Le Bouar, P.: Interlocking SNCF functional requirements description. Euro-Interlocking Project, Paris (May 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Mathworks: Stateflow and Stateflow Coder, Users Guide (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Mathworks: MATLAB 7 Users Guide (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5 (1999), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm
  20. 20.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: OCL: The constraint language of the UML. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 12(1), 10–13,28 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Bacherini
    • 2
  • Alessandro Fantechi
    • 1
  • Matteo Tempestini
    • 2
  • Niccolò Zingoni
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Sistemi e InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di Firenze 
  2. 2.General Electric Transportation Systems 

Personalised recommendations