RE: Syntax Free Models

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Martin Bryan wrote:
>There is a problem with any diagramatic methodology. The next object is your
>sequence should naturally come from the customer if you are thinking in
>terms of back and forth interaction, but it doesn't work like that in
>practice. The sequence of sources for the above chain is:

>Customer>Supplier -- Supplier>Customer -- Supplier>Customer --
>Customer>Supplier -- Supplier>Cusotmer -- Customer>Supplier.

>Trying to draw such chains is messy, especially when third parties get
>involved in the process. Hence my simplification.
[...]
>Interactive events are much more complex than the relatively simple
>process-to-process models I have been attempting to define.

Fully understood.  Here is an article that may be useful,
discussing different methods for presenting interactions,
ending up recommending a simplified form of Dooley graphs:
http://www.erim.org/~van/dooley.pdf 

No guarantee that anything there is better, but I do find
the linear sequence confusing.  Maybe it will be good 
for stimulating ideas...

>In most cases
>the best thing to do with interactive processes is to "build" a single
>message as a set of subprocesses. A good example of how this can be done is
>illustrated by OTP.

For example? (In other words, I might have a vague idea of what you mean,
or might have missed the point altogether.)

Thanks for the response,
Bob Haugen