Behavioural Models

From Modelling Finite Automata to Analysing Business Processes


1 Introduction

a) Properties of models

Models are ubiquitous in our everyday life. Given is the ground plan of a flat, which represents a model of it.

1b 1 Ground Plan
Fig. 1 a) Ground Plan

  1. Identify and discuss Stachowiak's properties mapping, abstraction and pragmatics for the given model.
  2. Name at least two different operations for which the given model is more useful than the original.
  3. Name at least two different operations of the original that the given model cannot be used for.
  4. List possibilities to validate and verify the model.

b) One original, different models

Given are a toy car [Fig. 1b) Model car], a clay model of a car [Fig. 1b) Clay Model], a technical drawing [Fig. 1b) Tech Drawing] and an activity diagram describing the car manufacturing process [Fig. 1b) Manufacturing Process].

1b 1 Model Car.jpg
Fig. 1b) Model car

1b 2 Clay Model
Fig. 1b) Clay Model

1b 3 Tech Drawing
Fig. 1b) Tech Drawing

1b 4 Manufacturing Process
Fig. 1b) Manufacturing Process

All four are different models of a car or a car-related process. For each of these models, answer the following questions:
  1. For which purpose was the model created (pragmatics property) and who is the intended user?
  2. Decide whether the model is a descriptive or prescriptive model. Give reasons for your decision.
  3. Characterise the mapping and abstraction properties of the model. Which aspects of the model have been abstracted away, which are preserved?
  4. How many originals exist for this particular model at the time of modelling?

c) Data models and behavioural models

Please revisit in the book the (data) model in Fig. 1.6 and the (behavioural) model in Fig. 1.7 of an online shop.

1c 1.png
Fig. 1 c) Data model

1c 2.png
Fig. 1 c) Behavioural model

Create a table in which you name...
  1. ...the similarities and differences regarding the mapping property.
  2. ...the similarities and differences in abstraction.
  3. ...the similarities and differences in pragmatics.