The idea is to extend an abstract syntax, that defines a Domain Specific Language (DSL) – for example a finite state machine language – with a model that describes runtime instances of the model (including state, counter, … ) plus a declarative (in this case even graphical) model for the behavior of the model simulation.

What I like in the idea is the thrive to make the DSL architect more productive in his work by relieving his duty to implement a model interpreter or model to code translator, if he invents a new DSL. By this, he can write a new DSL (like for example BPMN 2.0) and would be able to simulate the behavior of the execution semantics without implementation work – just by declarative modeling. That is the promise of the approach.

One could discuss, if the chosen Language MAction is the best way to describe model execution semantics, but at least it has to be taken serious. For me this is an interesting DSL prototyping environment. If one looks at model execution at runtime, I do not think that the Eclipse Environment is the right architecture for this. But it is a start – as I said – for DSL Prototyping. Other points that should be discussed in the future in my opinion are:

• Runtime Optimization for the Model by adding shortcuts in the Runtime Model
• Modeling of big examples (like BPMN 2.0) with the new language
• Evaluation of different ways of describing the Model Execution Semantics

References

Soden, M., & Eichler, H. (2009). Towards a Model Execution Framework for Eclipse. First European Workshop on Behaviour Modelling in Model Driven Architecture (BM-MDA) (S. 57-71). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Centre for Telematics and Information Technology Workshop Proceedings.

It is a trend to offer tooling that supports BPMN modeling together with model syntax checking and model simulation. For example see BPMN simulation and syntax checking in ARIS.

Model syntax checking can make sure, that modeling rules, that are statically checkable are kept. It is definitely a help. Especially beginners do not know all of the syntax rules and are guided by the checks. Also experts might find this feature helpful.

Model simulation can be distiguished into

1. Interactive simulation of a single process instance and
2. Cumulative simulation, where many process instances are created and throughput and latency are determined

Especially the ineractive simulation of a single process instance can also be a great help in understanding the model and even the modeling elements and it’s semantics.

The cumulative modeling itself is more like a determination, if the underlying business process is optimal or not.

Another category is thinkable: The verification. While cumulative simulation or single model instance simulation can not ensure, that certain attributes for a process hold, like the absence of deadlocks, verification can. Here it is decisive to find the right attributes of a process that shall be tested.

All of this are technical means to achieve better model quality, and all of these are useful. But none of these is so useful as a governance process. Just because humans can without all of these means do the same thing and they can do even more. They find problems, that even the most sophisticated syntax checker, simulator or verification routine will never find. Also what all of these methods can only find is the consistency of the model in itself (or with another model), but never can test the correspondence of the model with the real world process. This will still be left for humans for all times.

Therefore while all of these means of checking and testing are useful, because they are comfortable, they can or should never substitute a governance process.