text: A system model is developed where the criterion to partition the world into a system and a rest is based on the functional relation between its states. This approach implies that the gestalt of systems becomes very dynamic. Especially interactions between systems may create temporary super systems "on the fly". The reference to the function notion establishes the link to computation. Based on the distinction between the intended determinism versus nondeterminism of the interaction, two classes of system interactions are distinguished: composition and cooperation. Composition means that by interaction super systems are created and the interacting systems become subsystems. Cooperation means that systems sensibly interact loosely without creating any identifiable super system function and therefore without super system creation from the perspective of the interacting systems. Cooperative system interactions are described with the help of the protocol notion based on shared states, interpreted as the stateful exchange of characters via Shannon channels between roles - the projection of systems onto the interaction channels. It is shown that roles can be internally coordinated by a set of rules, leading to a very flexible process notion which unfolds its full potential only in a new type of execution environment capable of executing spontaneous transitions. The system model has immediate implications for componentization which can be viewed as an attempt to either hide functional recursion and provide only functionality whose composition behavior is easy to understand, or to provide loosely coupled interactions via protocols. To be complete, component models should therefore at least support three general classes of components: one for loose coupling, one for hierarchical composition, and one for pipes.
  @cite_3: Taking an interaction network oriented perspective in informatics raises the challenge to describe deterministic finite systems which take part in networks of nondeterministic interactions. The traditional approach to describe processes as stepwise executable activities which are not based on the ordinarily nondeterministic interaction shows strong centralization tendencies. As suggested in this article, viewing processes and their interactions as complementary can circumvent these centralization tendencies. The description of both, processes and their interactions is based on the same building blocks, namely finite input output automata (or transducers). Processes are viewed as finite systems that take part in multiple, ordinarily nondeterministic interactions. The interactions between processes are described as protocols. The effects of communication between processes as well as the necessary coordination of different interactions within a processes are both based on the restriction of the transition relation of product automata. The channel based outer coupling represents the causal relation between the output and the input of different systems. The coordination condition based inner coupling represents the causal relation between the input and output of a single system. All steps are illustrated with the example of a network of resource administration processes which is supposed to provide requesting user processes exclusive access to a single resource.
summary: In my opinion it is false to conclude from the non-functional relation of the reactive systems to their interaction partners to their somehow non-functional functioning - or ''mode of operation''. Even reactive systems work in a step wise mode and at least for technical systems the simple fact holds that for being constructable, there has to be a function to be implemented - the system function. The main difference between ''transformational'' and ''reactive'' systems in the sense of David Harel and Amir Pnueli is not their functioning but - as they correctly point out - their relation to their environment. For ''transformational'' systems their interfaces towards the interaction provides access to the full system function and thereby provides deterministic interactions. ''transformational'' systems are composed hierarchically by composition according to the definition of sub super systems . By contrast, as I proposed already in @cite_3 , the interfaces of ''reactive'' systems provide access to at least two different projections of the systems, which I call ''roles'' and thereby only provide nondeterministic interactions.