This reminds me of
the well-known opinion rendered by SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart in a pornography case:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
I think most of us know a process when we see one, and whether or not some "activity" is part of some larger entity or stands by itself. That doesn't get TC176 off the hook, of course, and all of this back-and-forth seems to bear that out. My contention has always been that we shouldn't spend so much time fretting over what a process is or isn't, and much more time paying attention to the
intersections of processes, where many bad things tend to happen. We still see a lot of stuff being thrown over a wall rather than there being a smooth continuum of shared purpose and responsibility.
The problem of intersections and the relationship (interactions) between processes has been met only with mostly useless turtle diagrams, or worse, complex depictions that serve only to demonstrate that the creators of them are hopelessly confused. Control the intersections and things will get better.
