RE: Syntax Free Models

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Bob Haugen:
>> Is the depicted process chain mandatory, or can process
>> chains be configured at will, or something else?

Martin Bryan:
> No way - it is purely indicative. It is there to illustrate that there are
> things that create process chains and other things that create subprocess.
> (I.e. its the axis labels that are the important part of the first diagram)
[...]
>Again let me stress I am not trying to define an overall model - thats for
>the architecture designers to determine. What I am pointing out is that the
>process hierarchy defines the context within which questions are answered.

Thanks for clarifying, Martin.  I hoped that was the case, 
but you would be surprised how rigid things become sometimes 
(or maybe you wouldn't..)

Upon re-reading, the next issue that jumps out is the 
sequential process chains, for flows that are interactive 
(unless I am missing something again).

Your example:
Order > Order Response > Despatch Advice > Receipt Advice > Invoice > Payment Advice

I assume would go:
Customer sends Order
Supplier returns Order Response
...etc

I understand that the sender and receiver info is conveyed
in the accompanying Information Units, but the diagram
syntax seems over-simplified to me.  I know you are 
trying for simple, and I agree with the goal, but it is
visually confusing to me (for one).

In other words, a visual hierarchy with sequential 
levels may not be a clear representation of interactive
events.

(Aside: I think there is a sweet spot in the design space
between too-simple and too-complex, but hitting it 
most likely requires some iteration.)

Again, if I misunderstood what was going on, please
clear up my confusion.  Otherwise, just consider that
I am taking your article very seriously, as I do all of
your writings, and understand that this is an early
draft.

Thanks again,
Bob Haugen