Participatory Verification of Railway Infrastructure by Representing Regulations in RailCNL

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10469)


Designs of railway infrastructure (tracks, signalling and control systems, etc.) need to comply with comprehensive sets of regulations describing safety requirements, engineering conventions, and design heuristics. We have previously worked on automating the verification of railway designs against such regulations, and integrated a verification tool based on Datalog reasoning into the CAD tools of railway engineers. This was used in a pilot project at Norconsult AS (formerly Anacon AS). In order to allow railway engineers with limited logic programming experience to participate in the verification process, in this work we introduce a controlled natural language, RailCNL, which is designed as a middle ground between informal regulations and Datalog code. Phrases in RailCNL correspond closely to those in the regulation texts, and can be translated automatically into the input language of the verifier. We demonstrate a prototype system which, upon detecting regulation violations, traces back from errors in the design through the CNL to the marked-up original text, allowing domain experts to examine the correctness of each translation step and better identify sources of errors. We also describe our design methodology, based on CNL best practices and previous experience with creating verification front-end languages.



We thank Martin Steffen and Aarne Ranta for numerous useful interactions, and Claus Feyling (CEO of RailCOMPLETE AS) for allowing us to use the time of his engineers for testing our results and other railway specific interactions.


  1. 1.
    Angelov, K., Camilleri, J.J., Schneider, G.: A framework for conflict analysis of normative texts written in controlled natural language. JLAP 82(5), 216–240 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jlap.2013.03.002MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.): Verification of Object-Oriented Software: The KeY Approach. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4334. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69061-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camilleri, J.J., Paganelli, G., Schneider, G.: A CNL for contract-oriented diagrams. In: Davis, B., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T. (eds.) CNL 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8625, pp. 135–146. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10223-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harel, D., Tiuryn, J., Kozen, D.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James, P., Roggenbach, M.: Encapsulating formal methods within domain specific languages: a solution for verifying railway scheme plans. Math. Comput. Sci. 8(1), 11–38 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s11786-014-0174-0MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johannisson, K.: Natural language specifications. In: Beckert et al. [3], pp. 317–333. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69061-0_7
  8. 8.
    Kensing, F., Blomberg, J.: Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 7(3), 167–185 (1998). doi: 10.1023/A:1008689307411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhn, T.: A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Comput. Linguist. 40(1), 121–170 (2014). doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ljunglöf, P.: Editing syntax trees on the surface. In: NoDaLiDa 2011, pp. 138–145 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luteberget, B., Camilleri, J.J., Johansen, C., Schneider, G.: Participatory Verification of Railway Infrastructure Regulations using RailCNL (long version). Technical report 465, University of Oslo (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luteberget, B., Johansen, C.: Efficient verification of railway infrastructure designs against standard regulations. Formal Methods Syst. Des., 1–32 (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0281-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luteberget, B., Johansen, C., Steffen, M.: Rule-based consistency checking of railway infrastructure designs. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 491–507. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meza Moreno, M.S., Bringert, B.: Interactive multilingual web applications with grammatical framework. In: Nordström, B., Ranta, A. (eds.) GoTAL 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5221, pp. 336–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85287-2_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: A dynamic deontic logic for complex contracts. J. Logic Algebr. Program. (JLAP) 81(4), 458–490 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.jlap.2012.03.003MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ranta, A.: Grammatical framework. J. Funct. Program. 14(2), 145–189 (2004). doi: 10.1017/S0956796803004738MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ranta, A., Camilleri, J., Détrez, G., Enache, R., Hallgren, T.: Grammar tool manual and best practices. Technical report, MOLTO Deliverable D2.3, MOLTO Consortium, Göteborg (2012).
  18. 18.
    Ranta, A., Enache, R., Détrez, G.: Controlled language for everyday use: the MOLTO phrasebook. In: Rosner, M., Fuchs, N.E. (eds.) CNL 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7175, pp. 115–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31175-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems. CSPP, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vu, L.H., Haxthausen, A.E., Peleska, J.: A domain-specific language for railway interlocking systems. In: FORMS/FORMAT 2014, pp. 200–209. TU Braunschweig (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wyner, A., et al.: On controlled natural languages: properties and prospects. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5972, pp. 281–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14418-9_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RailComplete ASSandvikaNorway
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of Technology and University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations