Existing process notations reflect the different but complementary
approaches taken in the research community towards improving
process
definition technology.
One extreme view is that progress is best made by completely
formalizing well-understood process elements for machine
execution (i.e., creating process code). The other extreme
view is that progress is better made by formalizing the
interaction of well-understood process elements in the context
of larger processes (i.e., creating process designs).
These views are not mutually exclusive,
but represent different approaches towards process definition.
Since Abstraction Hierarchy Diagrams, , and
MVP-L contain features for specifying
process specifications and interactions, they support the latter
view.
However, they are not process coding languages since
no imperative and control structures are included for
implementation
of the process bodies at the lowest levels.
Table 1 shows a comparison of the notations used in our study. Our assessment results rate each language as having excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor support for each process definition goal in [2], based on our experience. ``No Support'' ratings are given for notations that currently have no support for a goal. ``Not Applicable'' ratings are given for goals that were not explored in our study.
