Process Modelling Languages

Abstract

Until recently, the body of research in process modelling has been focused on different linguistic paradigms for the core PML in order to find the correct one. Our position now is that the idea of one standard, all-encompassing PML, is utopia. Theoretical problems and interoperability requirements (discussed in Section 3.3.8) have made this solution almost impossible, and we should lift our perspective up from that of low-level activity formalisms. To recapitulate: there is a wide variety of process phases and elements to be covered, although the community has concentrated much on the Implementation and Enactment phases of the software development meta-process. We must also interface towards actual production tools/workspaces. Different user roles have different needs, work modes and user interfaces. There are many technical arguments behind choosing one core PML and a set of sub-PMLs however the decisive factor in choosing the “federated” “interoperable” approach, is that we have to adapt to a myriad of relevant through alien languages, tools, and databases. All of these must somehow be incorporated into or interfaced against the PSEE. That is, simply that the PSEE developers alone do not control the PML design space. Thus, interoperability against standard or existing subsystems is an absolute must, especially since process support should augment existing computerised produc-tion tools, and not be a hindrance.