Process Management

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by StanyBecker, Dec 26, 2019.

  1. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    (Also via "setting up theories" ...)

    Be welcome on my article about "process management".
    Beneath, you will find the article itself ("Process management- article:").
    After that, wou can find some informaton about myself ("About me:").
    There, you will also find information about the why of these articles.
    You can contact me sending a reply or via "becker-vidal@skynet.be" ...



    Process management - article:

    TITLE
    Simplification of reusablility by a uniform and generally useable way to specify, build and store an informatics-routine (code) with a high degree of standardisation.



    AUTHORS
    Stany Becker



    ABSTRACT
    In this article, we propose a simple way to enable reusablility:
    We look for a uniform and generally useable way to specify, build and store an informatics-routine:
    In this article, we give a way to describe reality starting from a `founding proposition´. (see SettingUpTheories, text `Process Management´ - first occurence)
    As `founding proposition´, we take “all informatics-routines can be resumed in a (logical) proposition”.
    This seems to be more efficient then informally describing what an informatics-routine is supposed to do.

    We can also store that routine by storing the `routine-proposition´ as its specification.
    From that specification, we can then build the informatics-routine automatically (meaning without any further human interaction after start-up; a tool to do that is built).
    In my opinion, this beats interpreting the informal description and then trying to built by hand an informatics-routine accomplishing that informal description.

    Because the informatics-routine is built automatically, we can be sure that it does what the specification instructs.
    It also creates a high degree of standardisation because every informatics-routine is built using the same techniques.



    INTRODUCTION
    How can we get a uniform and generally useable way to specify, build and store an informatics-routine (code) for reuse?

    The branch of this article is “Computer sciences – programming language theory”.


    When we have a uniform and generally useable way of specifying an informatics-routine, we can store it, share it and use it as base to build that routine from its specification.
    It also could be helpfull in understanding what an informatics-routine exactly does and what it doesn’t do.

    A we said before, we can build (or rebuild) the implementing informatics-routine from its specification automatically, so we can be sure that the informatics-routine follows the specification.
    Because the built is automated, it follows fixed procedures.
    This means the result (the informatics-routine) will also have a high degree of standardisation.

    So, building just specifications is sufficient, because implementations can be generated from them automatically.

    Furthermore, we can use that specification to store in a data-holding application (like for instance a database) for further sharing and reuse, since it is uniform.


    So, this article is about exploring a method to get a uniform and generally useable way to specify, build and store an informatics-routine (code).
    All of this to enable code sharing in order to simplify reuse.



    MATERIALS AND METHODS
    The question is “How can we get a uniform and generally useable way to specify, build and store an informatics-routine (code) for reuse?”.
    At this time, people use some kind of informal explication of what an informatics-routine is supposed to do.

    Some primarily research led to the use of a logical proposition to specify an informatics-routine, the `routine-proposition´. [see `acknowledgement´]
    The meaning of that proposition is that it must always be held valid by the informatics-routine being specified.

    It was also put forward that such a proposition is sufficient to fully specify the informatics-routine.
    So, if the `routine-proposition´ fully specifies the informatics-routine, it must be possible to construct an implementation (in some language) from that `routine-proposition´.

    As a result, our methods is: construct an implementation for a `routine-proposition´ (a logical proposition that has to be helt valid).



    RESULTS
    This effort to construct such an implementation finally resulted in an application called `ReqLan´ (for Requirement Language).

    This application transforms a set of coupled propositions into their implementing informatics-routines (in Java for the current version).

    It does so without any further human interaction or assistance after being launched.
    Notice this technique can also be used to maintain these routines.

    Another use of `ReqLan´ could be to produce (or reproduce) the manager-level texts, all one has to do to achieve that is to replace the ‘code producing’ parts by ‘text producing’ parts.

    This implementing informatics-routine automatically has a high degree of standardisation.

    We can also store the specification (a proposition) in a data-holding application (e.g. a database).



    TABLES AND GRAPHS
    void



    DISCUSSION
    So, as we have seen, it is possible to specify an informatics-routine uniformly and generally by using its `routine-proposition´!
    We can store informatics-routines uniformly by storing its `routine-proposition´.

    From the `routine-proposition´, one can build its own machine-specific implementation using `ReqLan´ if needed.
    This implementation (a Java-routine) is built without any further human interaction or assistance after launch (as already mentioned).

    It has a high degree of standardisation.

    After being built, you can link this implementing routine to the `routine-proposition´ in a data-holding application.

    This all can be done automatically if needed.
    This means that building just specifications and elaborate them should be enough to build the application.

    This is a lot simpler then developping an application and what’s more, one only needs to adjust the specifications and regenerate (only one human adjustment).


    If we all use the this way of specifying, building and storing informatics-routines, the sharing and reuse of informatics-routines could be improved a lot.


    So, we can say that once we have the `routine-proposition´, it is fairly easy, fast and cheap to get an implementation (using `ReqLan´).


    Remains the (important) question how to get to such a`routine-proposition´!

    This can be the subject of further research.

    This research should include the managers, for they are the ones deciding what has to happen (they decide what should be in a `routine-proposition´).

    Currently, managers are producing (or having produced) informal texts explaining what has te happen.
    Imagine the progress made if the implementation could be done automatically from a formal `routine-propositions´ instead of having to follow the current difficult, slow and expensive way to implement.

    We could for instance develop templates to be filled out (by managers or their respresentatives) and then have code behind it to generate the formal `routine-propositions´.


    We can see this result as an example of “reverse engineering”, getting an implemenation from its specification.

    The propositon “all informatics-routines can be resumed in a (logical) proposition” can serve as an example of a `founding proposition´. (see SettingUpTheories, text `Process Management´ - first occurence)


    So, to conclude: In this article, we have pointed out a way to get to a uniform specification for an informatics-routine and a uniform and generally useable of building it, including a way of storing that informatics-routine for possible reuse.
    All these constructions are done without any human interaction after start-up.

    Notice that the manager-level texts could also be produced using another version of `ReqLan´ (with ‘texts producing’ parts instead of ‘code producing’ parts).



    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    With thanks to prof. Martin Ward (from Liverpool), who put me on the right track.



    REFERENCES (LITERATURE CITED)
    void


    About me:

    My name is Stany Becker.

    I have a degree in mathematics and as such, I am interested in study of space and in "theoretical studies of knowledge".

    Because I am new in the subject of publishing articles however, my first article is about a methematical construction to uniformly compute sums. ("Sum via Integral")

    After that, I will publish my view on the way theories could be set up. ("SettingUpTheories")

    That way is then used in the next articles to point out an alternative way to contemplate reality and to manage data and processes.

    Remark:
    The articles having equations (like "Mathematical description of reality" and "Description of reality") will be postponed until I have found a way to properly publish equations (like in “pdf”-format).
    I will test this on the articles in thread “Sum via Integral”.

    If you have any ideas about this, please let me know …
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,232
    you are publishing your own work ?
    fantastic !


    makes me think of

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page