Home

Model evaluation is a part of WP7, Task 1. The goal of this task is to identify the modelling languages that could fit the requirements associated to the specific needs of ETCS design and railway norms.

Depending on recommendations of WP2 on these needs, several languages may be necessary to handle the different levels of abstraction of the whole design process. For each candidate, a small subset of the ERTMS specification will be modelled. The languages may have to be adapted in the process. The identification and definition will distinguish between wide-spectrum modelling languages suitable for a wide variety of modelling domains such as UML, SysML, B, and domain-specific languages (DSL) designed and optimised for application in a specific application domain only. For wide-spectrum languages their metamodels1 will be analysed with respect to their expressive power and resulting adequateness for designing ERTMS models. For DSL candidates the associated meta-metamodels2 will be analysed with respect to their capabilities to support language extensions that may become necessary for novel releases of the ERTMS specification the in the future. Since no language is universal (i.e. able to address all aspects of design needs) the proposed approach is likely to involve several modelling languages supporting dierent viewpoints and working at dierent levels of abstractions. With this kind of approach, we will need to check the compatibility of the semantics of the modelling languages that address overlapping viewpoints. There are two problems here. First, when dealing with an heterogeneous specification, we need a common semantical basis to check the compatibility of the models. More pragmatically, when we deal with two models (expressed in a dierent language) that describe the same part of the system, we need to show that they are consistent with each other. Candidate languages will be subsequently evaluated against the requirements from WP2. If a suitable language is identified, but no partner steps up to model the prototype, it will not be considered.

Input: WP2: List of suitable languages (based on State of the Art Analysis) Nov-12

Input: WP2: Small subset of ERTMS requirements that is representative Nov-12

Input: Those WP2 Requirements that are sucient to evaluate a target language Jan-13

Output: Formal Model representing the sample spec, one for each candidate Mar-13

Output: Documentation of the changes to each language used (if any) Mar-13

Output: Evaluation of the models against the WP2 requirements Apr-13

Output: Decision on the final language choice(s) May-13

Deliverable: Report on the candidate languages (sample model, evaluation against requirements and evolution needed) Apr-13

Deliverable: Report on the final language choice(s) May-13

Corresponding to Section 1.1, the objective of this subtask is the identification of the primary modelling tools (analysis and other secondary tools will be the subject of Section 2), based on the analysis from WP2, by using it for the prototyping described in Section 1.1. The experience with the tools will be recorded, and the tools will be evaluated against the requirements from WP2. In particular, the compliance of the candidate tools with respect to EN50128 constraints will be investigated.

T7.1 Primary Tool Chain Analyses and Recommendations Duration Complete? T7.1.1 Identify and define the potential means of description 6 months Nov-2012 - May-2013 Nov-2012 T0+5 no → WP2: List of suitable means of description → WP2: Small subset of ERTMS requirements that is Nov-2012 T0+5 no representative Dec-2012 T0+6 no → WP2: Preliminary requirements Mar-2013 T0+9 no → WP2: Requirements ← O7.1.1 Formal Model representing the sample spec, Mar-2013 T0+9 no one for each candidate ← O7.1.2 Documentation of the changes to each Mar-2013 T0+9 no means of description used (if any) ← O71.3 Evaluation of the models against the WP2 Apr-2013 T0+10 no requirements ← O7.1.4 Decision on the final means of description May-2013 T0+11 no choice(s) T7.1.2 Identify and compare existing modelling tools 7 months Nov-2012 - Jun-2013 → WP2: List of suitable tools (based on State of the Nov-2012 T0+5 no Art Analysis) Dec-2012 T0+6 no → WP2: Preliminary requirements Mar-2013 T0+9 no → WP2: Requirements ← O7.1.5 Evaluation of tool and model for each proto- Apr-2013 T0+10 no type ← O7.1.6 Documentation of the changes to each tool Apr-2013 T0+10 no (if any) ← O7.1.7 Evaluation of the tools against the WP2 re- May-2013 T0+11 no quirements Jun-2013 T0+12 no ← O7.1.8 Decision on the final tool choice(s) D Report on the final choice(s) for the primary tool Jun-2013 T0+12 no chain (means of description, tool and platform) T7.1.3 Identify the tool platform 6 months Nov-2012 - May-2013 → List of target platforms, based on the tools being Nov-2012 T0+5 no evaluated (1.2) Dec-2012 → WP2: Preliminary requirements Mar-2013 T0+9 no → WP2: Requirements ← O7.1.9 Evaluation of each tool platform against Apr-2013 T0+10 no WP2 requirements, independent of target tool ← O7.1.10 Evaluation of tool platform in the context of May-2013 T0+11 no specific target tools May-2013 T0+11 no ← O7.1.11 Selection of Tool Platform (and reasoning) Figure 1. Inputs, Outputs and deliverables for WP7.1

• [Documentation](wiki/Documentation
• [Report a Bug or Issue](issues
• [Communication](wiki/Communication
• [Getting involved](wiki/Getting-Involved
• [Downloads](downloads
• [Project Plan](wiki/Project-Plan
• [Meetings](wiki/Meetings