Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of understandability

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 29 LNBIP, Issue , 2009, Pages 353-366

  Fahland, Dirk ^a   Lübke, Daniel ^b   Mendling, Jan ^a   Reijers, Hajo ^c   Weber, Barbara ^d   Weidlich, Matthias ^e   Zugal, Stefan ^d  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^c EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^e UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive dimensions framework; Declarative versus imperative modeling; Process model understanding

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS; PROCESS MONITORING; RESEARCH;

COGNITIVE DIMENSIONS; COGNITIVE DIMENSIONS FRAMEWORK; DECLARATIVE PROGRAMS; DECLARATIVE VERSUS IMPERATIVE MODELING; DIFFERENT PROCESS; IMPERATIVE PROGRAMS; PROCESS MODEL UNDERSTANDING; PROCESS MODELING LANGUAGE; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; SEQUENTIAL INFORMATION; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION LANGUAGES;

EID: 67449099560     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_29     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
2. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? an experimental study on understanding process modelling languages with-out formal education. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.)18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 356-366 (2007)
3. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Cardoso, J.:What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.)BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48-63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
4. Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21(1), 31-48 (1984)
5. Nigam, A., Caswell, N.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational speci?cation. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428-445 (2004)
6. Owen, M., Raj, J.: BPMN and Business Process Management: Introduction to the New Business Process Modeling Standard. Technical report, Popkin (2003), http://whitepaper.techweb.com/cmptechweb/search/viewabstract/71
7. Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave (2003)
8. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Work?ow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2008)
9. Boley, H.: Declarative and Procedural Paradigms - Do They Really Compete? In: Boley, H., Richter, M.M. (eds.)PDK 1991. LNCS, vol. 567, pp. 383-385. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)
10. Korhonen, J.: Evolution of agile enterprise architecture (April 2006), http://blog.jannekorhonen.fi/?p=11 (retrieved February 10, 2009)
11. Goldberg, L.: Seven deadly sins of business rules (September 2007), http://www.bpminstitute.org/articles/article/article/ seven-deadly-sins.html (retrieved February 10, 2009)
12. McGregor, M.: Procedure vs. process (January 2009), http://www.it- director.com/blogs/Mark-McGregor/2009/1/procedure-vs-process.html (retrieved February 10, 2009)
13. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.: Evaluating work?ow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics. Comp. in Ind. 59(5)(2008)
14. Guceglioglu, A., Demirors, O.: Using Software Quality Characteristics to Measure Business Process Quality. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.)BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 374-379. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
15. Felleisen, M.: On the Expressive Power of Programming Languages. Science of Computer Programming 17(1-3), 35-75 (1991)
16. Prechelt, L.: An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages. Computer, 23-29 (2000)
17. Dijkstra, E.: Letters to the editor: go to statement considered harmful. Communications of the ACM 11(3), 147-148 (1968)
18. Glinert, E.: Nontextual programming environments. In: Visual Programming Systems, pp. 144-230. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli?s (1990)
19. Wiedenbeck, S., Ramalingam, V., Sarasamma, S., Corritore, C.: A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting with Computers 11(3), 255-282 (1999)
20. Meyer, R.: Comprehension as a?ected by the structure of the problem representation. Memory & Cognition 4(3), 249-255 (1976)
21. Shneiderman, B., Mayer, R.: Syntactic/semantic interactions in programmer behavior: A model and experimental results. International Journal of Parallel Programming 8(3), 219-238 (1979)
22. Fodor, J., Bever, T., Garrett, M.: The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York (1974)
23. McKeithen, K., Reitman, J., Rueter, H., Hirtle, S.: Knowledge organization and skill di?erences in computer programmers. Cogn. Psych. 13(3), 307-325 (1981)
24. Adelson, B.: Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages. Memory & Cognition 9(4), 422-433 (1981)
25. Green, T.: Conditional program statements and their comprehensibility to professional programmers. Journal of Occupational Psychology 50, 93-109 (1977)
26. Green, T.: Ifs and thens: Is nesting just for the birds? Software Focus 10(5)(1980)
27. Gilmore, D., Green, T.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21(1), 31-48 (1984)
28. Green, T.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Sutcli?e, A., Macaulay, L. (eds.) People and Computers V, Proceedings, pp. 443-460 (1989)
29. Green, T., Petre, M.: Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A Cognitive Dimensions Framework. J. Vis. Lang. Computing 7(2), 131-174 (1996)
30. Blackwell, A.: Ten years of cognitive dimensions in visual languages and computing. J. Vis. Lang. Computing 17(4), 285-287 (2006)
31. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Aalst, W., Cardoso, J.: On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. In: Bellahś ene, Z., Leonard, M. (eds.)CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480-494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
32. Lloyd, J.: Practical advantages of declarative programming. In: Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, GULP-PRODE 1994 (1994)
33. Kowalski, R.: Algorithm = logic + control. Commun. ACM 22(7), 424-436 (1979)
34. Roy, P.V., Haridi, S.: Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)
35. Petri, C.A.: Concepts of net theory. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science: Proc. of Symposium and Summer School, High Tatras, September 3-8, pp. 137-146. Math. Inst. of the Slovak Acad. of Sciences (1973)
36. Holt, A.W.: A Mathematical Model of Continuous Discrete Behavior. Massachusettes Computer Associates, Inc. (November 1980)
37. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service ?ow language. In: Bravetti, M., Nunez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.)WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1-23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
38. Courcoubetis, C., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P., Yannakakis, M.: Memory-e?cient algorithms for the veri?cation of temporal properties. Formal Methods in System Design 1(2/3), 275-288 (1992)
39. Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)
40. Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing life into message sequence charts. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 45-80 (2001)
41. Sadiq, S., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.: A Framework for Constraint Speci?cation and Validation in Flexible Work?ows. Information Systems 30(5), 349-378 (2005)
42. Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(3), 872-923 (1994)