some historical statistics on modeling formalisms

Some historical statistics about the use of formalisms for modeling automated systems since 1800. Here is a chart about how frequently a particular name of a modeling formalism was used in literature. I’ve picked Automata, Petri nets, Process algebra, Statecharts, and UML.

You can get the full chart (and add your own favorite formalism) using Google Ngram. What I find surprising is that Petri nets were at some point as relevant in literature as automata (which have been discussed since the 1800s already). I’m not surprised that UML peaks all of them by far. On second throught also UML’s decline is not suprising as the hype returns to normal levels. What I do find surprising is that process algebras are much less referenced in literature than even the very particular, though successful, technique of statecharts.

 

number of ways students name an activity in a process model

I am currently evaluating data of a modeling experiment conducted with a number of colleagues. In that experiment, students were given a textual description of the NFL drafting process (which NFL scouts use to pick future star players), and students had to come up with a graphical process model of that process. We had 113 students participating. Obviously, different students will create different models. We also expected students to name the activities in the process model differently. Yet, we found a variety of ways of naming an activity that strikes me.

One sentence in the process description was the following

Afterwards the scouting team attends games of the player they are interested in live in the football stadium.

For this particular activity, we received 84 different ways of naming it (see complete list at the end of this post) – in other words, 2/3 of the students derived a different formal concept from this sentence. I think these observations hint at what needs to improved in teaching modeling. And also shows where real-world problems are in aligning process models to formal or informal descriptions.