Towards a Common Ontology of Safety Risk Concepts for Railway Vehicles and Signaling

  • Bernhard HulinEmail author
  • Hermann Kaindl
  • Roland Beckert
  • Thomas Rathfux
  • Roman Popp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11093)


In the railway domain, different methods are applied for estimating safety targets (like SIL) in the subdomains of railway rolling stock (e.g., SIRF) and railway control, command and signaling (e.g., BP-Risk), respectively, which are referred to as railway vehicles and railway signaling for the rest of this paper. Such methods are also based on different terminology underlying different concepts used, e.g., as parameters. Even worse, similar terms often mean different concepts. This may lead to different risk estimates for these subdomains of the railway domain.

Our approach for addressing these problems has been to create a common safety ontology covering the important concepts of both subdomains. Hence, we analyzed the methods SIRF and BP-Risk with regard to the terms and parameters used. Based on this analysis and a previous safety ontology for railway vehicles, we created a new common ontology for railway vehicles and signaling. It is also consistent with the related terminology of EN 50126 (for railway systems) and ISO 26262 (for automobiles). Such an ontology should facilitate the reuse of hazard and risk analyses from one subdomain to the other, and it should have important application areas such as estimating safety targets consistently.



The RiskOpt project (No. 845610) is funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) under the program “ICT of the Future” between October 2014 and September 2018. More information can be found at


  1. 1.
    EN 50126-1: Railway applications - The specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS). Part 1: Basic requirements and generic process, September 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CLC/TR 50126-2: Railway applications - The specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS). Part 2: Guide to the application of EN 50126–1 for safety, February 2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, May 2010Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO 26262: Road vehicles - Functional safety, November 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bepperling, S.L., Fermaud, C.: Risikoanalyse für den Stellwerksersatz der Hafenbahn Schweiz AG. SIGNAL + DRAHT Ausgabe 07+08/2015, 18–21 (7+8 2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bepperling, S.L., Schäbel, A.: Estimation of safety requirements for wayside hot box detection systems. In: Schnieder, E., Tarnai, G. (eds.) FORMS/FORMAT 2010, pp. 135–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braband, J.: Definition and analysis of a new risk priority number concept. In: Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U., Dang, V.N. (eds.) Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, pp. 2006–2011. Springer, London (2004). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisenbahn Bundesamt Deutschland: Sicherheitsrichtlinie Fahrzeug (SIRF), June 2012.
  9. 9.
    Gallina, B., Szatmári, Z.: Ontology-based identification of commonalities and variabilities among safety processes. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds.) PROFES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9459, pp. 182–189. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group: Dependability Assurance Framework For Safety-Sensitive Consumer Devices (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haavik, T.K.: On the ontology of safety. Saf. Sci. 67(Suppl. C), 37–43 (2014). The Foundations of Safety Science
  12. 12.
    Hulin, B., Kaindl, H., Rathfux, T., Popp, R., Arnautovic, E., Beckert, R.: Towards a common safety ontology for automobiles and railway vehicles. In: European Dependable Computing Conference (2016).
  13. 13.
    Jo, H., Hwang, J.G., Kim, Y.K.: Risk assessment method for guaranteeing safety in the train control system. In: URBAN TRANSPORT, pp. 567–576, August 2007Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaindl, H., Rathfux, T., Hulin, B., Beckert, R., Arnautovic, E., Popp, R.: A core ontology of safety risk concepts. In: Bogdan, C., et al. (eds.) HCSE/HESSD 2016. LNCS, vol. 9856, pp. 165–180. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kostov, B., Ahmad, J., Křemen, P.: Towards ontology-based safety information management in the aviation industry. In: Ciuciu, I., et al. (eds.) OTM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10034, pp. 242–251. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ławrynowicz, A., Ławniczak, I.: Towards a core ontology of occupational safety and health. In: Tamma, V., Dragoni, M., Gonçalves, R., Ławrynowicz, A. (eds.) OWLED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9557, pp. 134–142. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo, Y., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Klabbers, M.: From conceptual models to safety assurance. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 195–208. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  18. 18.
    de la Vara, J.L., Panesar-Walawege, R.K.: SafetyMet: a metamodel for safety standards. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 69–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou, J., Hänninen, K., Lundqvist, K., Provenzano, L.: An ontological interpretation of the hazard concept for safety-critical systems. In: The 27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, June 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Hulin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hermann Kaindl
    • 2
  • Roland Beckert
    • 2
  • Thomas Rathfux
    • 2
  • Roman Popp
    • 2
  1. 1.NTC-Systems GmbHGilchingGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Computer TechnologyTU WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations