International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems

Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems pp 87-102 | Cite as

Towards a Body of Knowledge in Formal Methods for the Railway Domain: Identification of Settled Knowledge

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 596)

Abstract

Bodies of Knowledge (BoK) are available only in mature technical fields, in which professional practices and technical rules have been well established (i.e.: ‘settled’), and are compiled for any prospective or current practitioner to refer to. By their factual establishment they also become professionally normative to a considerable extent. As a precursor to establishing a BoK it is important to determine whether or not a target domain already contains sufficient ‘settled’ knowledge, and, if yes, how such knowledge can be identified for its reproduction. In the undisputed safety-critical railway domain, formal methods have been applied for several decades in the solution of various modelling and verification problems. The application of many of those formal methods in the railway domain has also reached sufficient levels of maturity or ‘stability’ — yet no BoK for this domain has ever been compiled so far. Thus the time is ripe now to start such a project. In this paper, with regard to the necessary identification of settled knowledge, we apply the lattice-theoretical methods of Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) in order to structure and organise large amounts of relevant bibliometric data from the railway domain’s corpus of literature. In other words, we construct a formal concept lattice, the semantics of which is suitable for revealing the ‘settled’ parts of this domain. As a result of our formalised domain analysis, we provide a clear and theoretically well-grounded indication of the ‘settled’ themes and topics which any future BoK on Formal Methods in the Railway Domain ought to contain.

Keywords

Formal methods Railway domain Body of knowledge Settled knowledge Formal concept analysis Semantic lattices 

References

  1. 1.
    Arageorgis, A., Baltas, A.: Demarcating technology from science: problems and problem solving in technology. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 20(2), 212–229 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bjørner, D.: Formal software techniques in railway systems. In: Proceedings 9th IFAC Symposium on Control in Transportation Systems, pp. 1–12. VDI/VDE (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjørner, D.: TRain: the railway domain. http://euler.fd.cvut.cz/railwaydomain/
  4. 4.
    Bunge, M.: Philosophy of Science: From Explanation to Justification, vol. 2, Revised edn. Transaction Publ., Piscataway (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buzmakov, A., Kuznetsov, S., Napoli, A.: Is concept stability a measure for pattern selection? Procedia Comput. Sci. 31, 918–927 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fantechi, A.: Twenty-five years of formal methods and railways: what next? In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formale Begriffsanalyse: Mathematische Grundlagen. Springer, Berlin (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruner, S., Haxthausen, A., Maibaum, T., Roggenbach, M.: FM-RAIL-BOK organizers’ message. In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruner, S., Haxthausen, A., Maibaum, T., Roggenbach, M.: Homepage of the workshop on a formal methods body of knowledge for railway control and safety systems (2013). https://ssfmgroup.wordpress.com/rel/
  10. 10.
    Jackson, M.: Formal methods and traditional engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 40, 191–194 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, A.: A preparatory study towards a body of knowledge in the field of formal methods for the railway domain. Master-of-Applied Science Dissertation, McMaster University, Canada (2015). http://hdl.handle.net/11375/18416
  12. 12.
    Kuznetsov, S.: On stability of a formal concept. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 49(1–4), 101–115 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuznetsov, S., Ignatov, D.: Concept stability for constructing taxonomies of web-site users. Computing Research Repository (CoRR) abs/0905.1424 (2009)
  14. 14.
    Maibaum, T.: What is a BoK? large: extended abstract. In: Counsell, S., Núñez, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8368, pp. 184–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poser, H.: On structural differences between science and engineering. Digital Library and Archives of the Virginia Tech University Libraries (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Priss, U.: Formal concept analysis homepage. http://www.fcahome.org.uk/
  17. 17.
    Roth, C., Obiedkov, S., Kourie, D.G.: Towards concise representation for taxonomies of epistemic communities. In: Yahia, S.B., Nguifo, E.M., Belohlavek, R. (eds.) CLA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4923, pp. 240–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw, M.: The Coming-of-age of software architecture research. In: Proceedings 23rd ICSE, pp. 656–663. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies From Aeronautical History. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yevtushenko, S., ConExp,: Concept Explorer. http://conexp.sourceforge.net/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Computing and SoftwareMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computing and SoftwareMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations