“Concise” and “straightforward” are not the right adjectives to characterize this paper. Weigand and de Moor write, for almost the whole paper, about something they call “communication norms,” but even upon rereading the paper, I found that they have neither explained the norms inherent in the language/action perspective (LAP), nor created a framework for the analysis of workflow loop models.

Sections 1 and 2 introduce the topic. In section 3, the authors discuss two already well-known models of LAP-based workflow, and in section 4, they start to discuss a new topic, internal control theory. Only after ten pages does the core of the paper actually start. Section 6 is where the authors introduce a formal framework for normative workflow analysis.

I may be idiosyncratic, but I prefer papers where the writers go straight to the core of the problem. I also believe that section 6 lacks formality and conciseness, as do the other sections. By formal, I mean “relating to or involving the outward form, structure, relationships, or arrangement of elements rather than content” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, 1996). I found many references to the content, and few to the form, structure, and relationships of the model.

The scientific contribution of this work has already been validated. It’s not in my interest to redo the refereeing process, but I believe it is important that readers know in advance that the work is not easy to read, is repetitive, and will probably leave you with more doubts on the language/action perspective for workflow models than you had to start with, even if that perspective is more than 15 years old.