Talk:Process architecture

Title vs. Content

This article seems to be more about the use of dPNs in modeling process architectures that it is about process architecture in general. To avoid the appearance of bias, it might be a good idea to trim down the discussion of dPNs and add some discussion of other formalisms for process architecture representation. It would also be nice to see more discussion of process architecture in general (beyond what is in the leader), rather than just formalisms for representing architectures. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree that this article is mainly about dPNs. It is an interesting article, but has almost nothing to do with "process architecture". The cited reference is about system architecture to support dPNs -- that is not process architecture. I would recommend removing this page, and relocating the content to a page about dPNs. Goflow6206 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agreed, and nothing was being done to rectify it, so I have split the page in two: the dPN-specific material is now in Dualistic Petri nets, while the general introductory section remains here. Rp (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that system architecture IS process architecture -- so now all the nice systems discussion of concepts such as suprastructure and requirements analysis that have everything to do with process architecture get hidden away in an indirectly referenced article. Well, if this is an improvement, then I give up. The Process Architecture article you produced is nonsense and in my opinion useful to no one. Congratulations on the hack job. Creacon (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has very weak references, which only point to Petri Nets context. If the intent was to present a generic concept then it should be backed by references from BPM or Business Architecture disciplines. Otherwise, I suggest making it part of some other topic like Petri Net. Voywiki (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineering

I support the removal of this article from the Engineering category for two reasons. Firstly, the Engineering category is very large, and there is an ongoing push to move articles into subcategories. Secondly, this article is already included in Category:Process management, which is (rightly or wrongly) included within Category:Systems engineering. If an article is in a subcategory, it should not normally be included in the parent category as well. I agree that the subcategory tree is a bit of a mess, but that is not sufficient reason to restore this article to the Engineering category. --RichardVeryard 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand your intentions. Thanks for the comment -- it beats making a change and adding no comment to the reason behind the change. As I look at it, Process Management is far too constraining for Process architecture. I will move it to Category:Systems engineering instead, as it belongs in most of SE's sub-categories as well. Creacon 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The categories need to be revised now that the page is split in two. Rp (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]