A Situation Theoretic Approach to the Representation of Processes

  • Christopher Menzel
  • Richard J. Mayer
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)


Typical methods for representing business, engineering, and manufacturing processes represent process information by means of rather restricted, often graphical languages. These languages are often fine as far as they go, but for many purposes—information sharing, in particular—much more precise, detailed representations of enterprise processes are required. In this paper we develop an approach to the rigorous representation of process information based on situation theory. We begin with an informal account of the semantic categories of the approach including situations, infons, types, activities, and processes, as well as the central relations that can hold between them. A framework known as ST that builds upon the Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) is introduced for expressing information in these terms. The use of ST is then illustrated in detail by means of a series of examples.


Process modeling situation theory enterprise integration knowledge sharing Knowledge Interchange Format ontology 


  1. Allen, J., and Hayes, P. (1987) Moments and points in an interval-based temporal logic. Technical Report TR180, Departments of Computer Science and Philosophy, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1983) Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. (1987) The Situation in Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  4. Devlin, K. (1991) Logic and Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Enderton, H. (1972) A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic Press, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Genesereth, M. R., and Fikes, R. E. (1992) Knowledge Interchange Format version 3.0 — Reference Manual. Technical report Logic-92–1, Logic Group, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Grtininger M., and Fox, M. (1994) The design and evaluation of ontologies for enterprise engineering. Ms., Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  7. Gruninger, M., and Fox, M. (1995) Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. IJCAI-95 Workshop on Basic Issues in Ontology, Montreal, August 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Grtininger M., and Pinto, J. (1995) A theory of complex actions for enterprise modelling, AAAI Spring Symposium: Extending Theories of Action, Stanford University, March 1995.Google Scholar
  9. Hayes, P. (1977) In defense of logic. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 559–565.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, J., Yost G., and the PIF Working Group (1994) The PIF process interchange format and framework. Working Paper 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science. Available in postscript format by anonymous ftp from as in the directory /PUB/CCS W orking_Papers/.Google Scholar
  11. McCarthy J., and Hayes, P. (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 463–502. Also in B. L. Weber and N. Nilsson, Readings in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. McCarthy, J. (1968) Programs with Common Sense. In M. Minsky (ed.), Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 403–418.Google Scholar
  13. Menzel, C., and Mayer, R. (forthcoming) A Situation Theoretic Framework for Process Modeling. Forthcoming in the International Journal for Concurrent Engineering Research Applications.Google Scholar
  14. van Bentham, J. (1983) The Logic of Time. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Menzel
    • 1
  • Richard J. Mayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M University and Knowledge Based Systems, Inc.College StationUSA

Personalised recommendations