1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Business Process Model and Notation 2.1 Revision Task Force

Closed Issues

  • Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
  • Name: bpmn2-rtf
  • Issues Count: 7

Issues Descriptions

Text User Task instead of Manual Task

  • Key: BPMN2-301
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15681
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: scch.at ( Christine Natschlär)
  • Summary:

    The first sentence on page 171 states:
    The User Task inherits the attributes and model associations of Activity (see Table 10.3), but does not have any
    additional attributes or model associations.

    I think that in the mentioned sentence "User Task" should be replaced by "Manual Task".
    The sentence is still in the section of the Manual Task and the User Tasks starts afterwards also providing its own statement stating that the User Task inherits the attributes and model associtations of Activity.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0 — Mon, 4 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 21:32 GMT

Page 345. “Sub-Choreographies” instead of “Choreography Activities”

  • Key: BPMN2-300
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15594
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: craftware.net ( Eduardo Jara)
  • Summary:

    It says:
    “Both Sub-Choreographies can have standard loops and multi-instances. Examples of Choreography Activities with the appropriate markers can be seen in Figure 11.12 and Figure 11.22.”

    The purpose of this paragraph is to explain that both Choreography Task and Sub-Choreography can have loop markers. Figure 11.12 shows Choreography Task Markers, and Figure 11.22 shows Sub-Choreography Markers

    Then, it should say:
    “Both Choreography Activities can have standard loops and multi-instances. Examples of Choreography Activities with the appropriate markers can be seen in Figure 11.12 and Figure 11.22.”

    “Sub-Choreographies” should be replaced by “Choreography Activities”

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0 — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 21:32 GMT

None Events not for catch Intermediate Event

  • Key: BPMN2-299
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15687
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: scch.at ( Christine Natschlär)
  • Summary:

    The following text is from page 280:
    There are three (3) variations of None
    Events: a Start Event, a catch Intermediate Event, and an End Event (see Figure 10.91).

    The catch None Intermediate Event MUST only be used in normal flow and, thus, MAY NOT be attached to the boundary of an Activity.

    However, according to Table 10.93 and the former text, a None-Trigger is allowed for a Start Event, End Event and for a throw Intermediate Event but not for a catch Intermediate Event.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0 — Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 04:11 GMT

Conditional Event instead of Error Event

  • Key: BPMN2-298
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15686
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: scch.at ( Christine Natschlär)
  • Summary:

    On page 273, after the heading Error Event, the following text is displayed: Figure 10.79 shows the variations of Conditional Events.

    However, the actual section describes Error Events and Figure 10.79 also shows Error Events.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0 — Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 04:11 GMT

Page 181. Wrong reference to table 10.20

  • Key: BPMN2-297
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15463
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: craftware.net ( Eduardo Jara)
  • Summary:

    It says
    “Table 10.3 presents the additional attributes of the Sub-Process element:”

    It should say
    “Table 10.20 presents the additional attributes of the Sub-Process element:”

    “Table 10.3” should be replaced by “Table 10.20”

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0 — Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 04:11 GMT

Conflicting content regarding choreographies.

  • Key: BPMN2-296
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17094
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I was going through the BPMN 2.0 Specifications and found some conflicting
    content regarding choreographies. In section 7.4 Use of Text, Color, Size,
    and Lines in a Diagram, the third indented point of the bullet "The fills
    that are used for the graphical elements MAY be white or clear" states
    that "Participant Bands for Choreography Tasks and Sub-Choreographies that
    are not the initiator of the activity MUST have a light fill. This does
    not seem to be consistent with what is depicted in Figure 7.7 An example
    of a stand-alone choreography diagram. It is also not consistent with the
    discussions on Choreography in the same document in Section 11.4.1
    Choreography Task.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — BPMN 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn by submitter

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:48 GMT

Page 203, Table 10-26, MultiInstance Activity: What is the intended use case if the catching boudnary event is interrupt

  • Key: BPMN2-295
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14539
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Page 203, Table 10-26, multiInstanceLoopCharacteristics: I believe that the motivation behind having events thrown in coordination with the completion of instances of multiInatnce activity is to have non-interrupting boundary events to carry out some desired ackownledgements (or other defined activites), but if the catching boudnary event is interrupting, the alternate flow will be followed potentially resulting in un-expected or suspected behavior.

    What is the intended use case if the catching boudnary event is interrupting?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 8 Oct 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The design of the MI activity was done with the use case in mind that the catching boundary event is non-interrupting.
    However, we do not see a strong reason to rule out that the catching boundary event could be interrupting.
    Disposition: Closed, No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:15 GMT