Chris Pr (asker) May 26, 2016:

Thanks a lot for all the input. :)

Ramey Rieger (X) May 25, 2016:

extend beyond is fine with me Have a good one, Björn.

Björn Vrooman May 25, 2016:

@Ramey I suggested the addition of "individual" because I don't want to end up on a higher plane of existence, if you catch my drift.

The dependencies in question are not limited to one process or interface, but consist of dependencies between different interfaces or processes, or they are dependencies shared by different interfaces and processes.

You may just turn it around:
"I've taken a special interest in relationships and dependencies that aren't limited to just one particular interface or process."

Ramey Rieger (X) May 25, 2016:

beyond, for me always implies a limit/border.

Ramey Rieger (X) May 25, 2016:

His particular interest is the coherencies and dependencies beyond the limits of interfaces and processes - as Björn said, he's the man with omnivision

Björn Vrooman May 25, 2016:

@Chris Prozessgrenzen describe the delineation/delimitation/demarcation of processes. You might as well say "prozessübergreifend" - you don't need "limits."

I don't like transcend, especially not without an "individual" in there somewhere. In other words: These relationships and dependencies "extend beyond individual interfaces or processes."

He intends to say he is a structuralist. He's your guy when you want to "see the bigger picture."