Designing Domain Specific Languages – A Craftsman’s Approach for the Railway Domain Using Casl

  • Phillip James
  • Alexander Knapp
  • Till Mossakowski
  • Markus Roggenbach
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7841)


Domain modelling based on UML Class Diagrams is an established industrial practice. In the context of the Railway industry, we show how to utilize such diagrams for verification. This involves the translation of UML Class Diagrams into the algebraic specification language CASL. To this end, we define new Class Diagram institutions and provide suitable institution comorphisms.


Designing Domain Function Symbol Class Diagram Predicate Symbol Rigidity Constraint 
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.
    Andova, S., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L.: Prototyping the Semantics of a DSL using ASF+SDF: Link to Formal Verification of DSL Models. In: AMMSE 2011. Electr. Proc. Theo. Comp. Sci., vol. 56, pp. 65–79 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, B., van Deursen, A., Res, M.: An Algebraic Specification of a Language for Describing Financial Products. In: Wirsing, M. (ed.) Wsh. Formal Methods Applications in Software Engineering Practice, Seattle, pp. 6–13 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjørner, D.: Dynamics of Railway Nets: On an Interface between Automatic Control and Software Engineering. In: CTS 2003. Elsevier (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjørner, D.: Domain Engineering – Technology Management, Research and Engineering. JAIST Press (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonachea, D., Fisher, K., Rogers, A., Smith, F.: Hancock: A Language for Processing Very Large-scale Data. SIGPLAN Notices 35(1) (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A., Tarlecki, A., Wirsing, M.: A Heterogeneous Approach to UML Semantics. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 383–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    dos Santos, O.M., Woodcock, J., Paige, R.: Using Model Transformation to Generate Graphical Counter-Examples for the Formal Analysis of xUML Models. In: 16th Int. Conf. Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 2011), pp. 117–126. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebbinghaus, H., Flum, J., Thomas, W.: Mathematical logic. Springer (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler, M.: Domain Specific Languages. Addison-Wesley (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hughes, G.E., Cresswell, M.J.: A new introduction to modal logic. Routledge (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goguen, J., Burstall, R.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM 39, 95–146 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hussmann, H., Cerioli, M., Baumeister, H.: From uml to casl (static part). Technical Report DISI-TR-00-06, DISI-Universit di Genova (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Invensys Rail. Data Model – Version 1A (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    James, P., Knapp, A., Mossakowski, T., Roggenbach, M.: From UML Class Diagrams to Modal CASL. Technical report, Universität Augsburg (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    James, P., Roggenbach, M.: Designing domain specific languages for verification: First steps. In: Höfner, P., McIver, A., Struth, G. (eds.) 1st Wsh. Automated Theory Engineering (ATE 2011). CEUR Wsh. Proc., vol. 760, pp. 40–45. (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kerr, D., Rowbotham, T.: Introduction to Railway Signalling. Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lano, K., Clark, D., Androutsopoulos, K.: UML to B: Formal Verification of Object-Oriented Models. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G.P. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, pp. 187–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meng, S., Aichernig, B.: Towards a Coalgebraic Semantics of UML: Class Diagrams and Use Cases. Technical Report 272, UNU/IIST (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and How to Develop Domain-specific Languages. ACM Computing Surveys 37(4) (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mossakowski, T.: Relating CASL with Other Specification Languages: The Institution Level. Theo. Comp. Sci. 286, 367–475 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mossakowski, T.: ModalCASL — Specification with Multi-Modal Logics. Language Summary (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mossakowski, T.: HeTS — the Heterogeneous Tool Set, home page (June 2011),
  23. 23.
    Mosses, P.D. (ed.): CASL Reference Manual. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Object Managment Group. Unified Modeling Language (UML), v2.4.1 (2011),

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip James
    • 1
  • Alexander Knapp
    • 2
  • Till Mossakowski
    • 3
  • Markus Roggenbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Swansea UniversityUK
  2. 2.Universität AugsburgGermany
  3. 3.DFKI GmbH BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations