Business Process Model And Notation Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Business Process Model And Notation — Open Issues

  • Acronym: BPMN
  • Issues Count: 97
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
BPMN21-396 Missing Element in BPMN 2.0.2 ? BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-392 Multiple Instances - Both types of diagram described as Sequential BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-391 Unclear execution semantics of MI activities with complex behavior BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-390 Table 8.51 ref error BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-387 Wrong table reference number BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-386 Wrong table reference number BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-388 Contradiction - can or cannot show Data Object multiple times on a diagram BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-384 Wrong table reference number BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-385 Wrong name of object BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-383 Attribute name "error" should actually by "errorRef" BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-382 Figure 10.57 does not show that InputOutputSpecification derives from BaseElement BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-381 Default value of DataStore.isUnlimited differs between Table 10.55 and XML Schema BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-376 Page 29, Section 7.2.2 - Fork and Join Differentiation BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-80 Choreography activities sharing message flow BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-68 The spec should clearly state what visual features are available for extensions and which are restricted to core spec BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-75 Notation for shared correlation properties BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-66 Add Brief Description for Error and Escalation Event Definitions BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-70 Ambiguous statements about Sequence Flow BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-69 How to represent Activities that might fit in more than one Lane? BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-72 Redundancy in specifying data in processes BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-84 Define rules for placement of multiple activity markers BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-83 Data associations need to be revisited and their use clarified. BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-78 Rethink implementation attribute in Send/Receive/Service Tasks BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-71 Multi-language labels for diagram elements BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-79 Lists of values BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-81 Messages and User Tasks BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-76 Enforcability rules not complete BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-73 definitionalCollaborationRef should be 0..* BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-67 UML interface operations do not match BPMN interface operations BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-74 Notation for expanded hexagons BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-77 Integrate temporal and token semantics BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-82 Add Link Events to a sub-conformance level (Descriptive) BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-65 A New Hook for Organizational Models? BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-60 Section 10.2.3: Task description needs revisiting BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-42 Provide example: Choreography BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-9 Page 203, Table 10-26, The text describing the none and all behavior have been inverted BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-38 Beta 1: Section 11.2: Use of BPMN Common Elements [Choreography] -- Return removed TBD sections and complete text BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-23 Exclusive gateway Choreography rules too restrictive, only sender needed BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-41 Section 14.4 [BPEL mapping] Missing intermediate send event; mapping of participant ref BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-58 Section 8.3.3 [Data] Inconsistency between usage of expressions in Sequence Flows and in Data Associations BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-29 Add an example of Mutlple Start Events on the Boundary of a Sub-Process BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-62 Section 10.2 Clearer separation between conceptual and visual model needed BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-15 Interactions supporting interactions BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-47 Provide example: Inline Subprocess BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-33 Beta 1: Section 9.1 Collaboration: Expand description of Collaboration in section BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-45 Provide example: Multi-instance activity BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-50 Beta 1 Spec: Section 10.3 Data [Data]: BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-24 Roles for Entities BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-20 Figure 11-4 description BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-53 Throughout Spec [Specification]: Define explicit separation of "modeling" vs "implementation" attributes BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-56 Beta 1 - Section 14.3 [Execution Semantics]: Examples for the use of gateways are missing BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-57 Annex A {Spec]: Add a section that documents the changes between V1.1 and V2.0 BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-10 Example of Lane, Laneset, and Partitions BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-16 Rules for exclusive gateway in choreography too strict BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-2 Concept definition for Business Process BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-44 Provide example: Complex gateway BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-51 Beta 1 Spec: New Annex?: Enumerate the validation rules of BPMN BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-30 Initializing and updating properties is not straight-forward BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-14 PartnerRole underspecified and misnamed BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-46 Provide example: Basic gateway examples BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-4 Depiction of diagram fragments BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-26 optional source and target refs for data association BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-61 Section 10.5 Text duplicated from 8.3.10 BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-37 Beta 1: Section 10.1.2: Use of BPMN Common Elements [Process] -- Return removed TBD sections and complete text BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-34 Beta 1: Section 10.2.4 Performer: Relate Performer to Human Performer BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-3 Page 046, Section 7.2, Message not listed as a BPMN element BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-40 Beta 1 Section 8.3.17 Sequence Flow and 14.2.1 Sequence Flow Considerations BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-55 Define "Pool" BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-49 Beta 1 Spec: Section 14 BPEL Mapping: Better clarify the subset of BPMN diagrams that are BPEL-mappable (roundtrippable! BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-35 Section 14.2.2 Activity (semantics): BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-11 Message flow to/from events in Collaboration diagrams BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-18 Event-based gateways in choreography should be exclusive BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-5 Page 070, section 8 list of Core elements BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-22 Beta 1 Section 15.1.2 Sub-Process Mappings: Table referenced is missing BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-25 Beta 1: Section 17 BPMN Example: Include full BPMN example for this section BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-63 Link Events - Constraints and Usage not clearly documented BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-13 CorrelationClassDiagram missing conversation association end name BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-7 This is a style suggestion to make diagrams clearer BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-27 Multiple processes per participant BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-32 Notation for alternaitve data input/output sets BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-43 Provide example: Conversation View BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-59 More description for "Process as a callable element" BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-17 Multiple senders after event-based gateway in choreography BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-21 Section 10.5.5 Complex Gateway: The general description of Complex Gateways needs improving BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-31 Exclusive Gateway Choreography Rule too Restrictive, starting new process BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-54 Correlation across conversations BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-12 Gateways in Choreography missing split or merge BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-1 Allow a Process to be Ad Hoc (in addition to a Sub-Process) BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-28 Beta 1 Section 15.1.2 Mapping to BPEL Activities: Message Mapping snippet refers to StructureDefinition BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-52 Section 9 Collaboration [Choreography; Specification, Metamodel]: BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-48 Provide example: Basic process structure BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-6 Page 251, Start Event on the boundary of a sub-process BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-39 [Chroeography] Complete section 11.4: Events BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-64 Continue versus terminate in loop BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-8 Add a User Event BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-36 Beta 1: Section 10.2.2 Human Interactions: The Parameter class should be described BPMN 2.0b1 open
BPMN21-19 Parallel Gateway participants BPMN 2.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

Missing Element in BPMN 2.0.2 ?

  • Key: BPMN21-396
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19887
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I refer to BPMN Spec. Version 2.0.2.

    I really miss the data storage element which is supported by all BPMN tools that I know:

    in Spec. chapter 7.3.1 or 7.3.2.

    What happened with this element ??

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:50 GMT

Multiple Instances - Both types of diagram described as Sequential

  • Key: BPMN21-392
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19839
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Textual description of the two Multiple Instance shape types (2nd column) describe both shapes as "Sequential", whereas one should be "Sequential", and the other "Parallel".

    Text copied belowL

    "A set of three horizontal lines will be displayed at the bottom-center of the activity for SEQUENTIAL Multi-Instances (see upper figure to the right).

    "A set of three vertical lines will be displayed at the bottom-center of the activity for SEQUENTIAL Multi-Instances (see lower figure to the right)."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:35 GMT

Unclear execution semantics of MI activities with complex behavior

  • Key: BPMN21-391
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19831
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Munkert Software ( Frank Munkert)
  • Summary:

    "Table 10.31 - ComplexBehaviorDefinition attributes and model associations" contains the following text: "This attribute defines a boolean Expression that when evaluated to true,
    cancels the remaining Activity instances and produces a token."

    In chapter "13.3.7 Multiple Instances Activity", where the execution semantics are described, however, there is no mentioning that multi-instance activities with complex behavior cancel instances as soon the ComplexBehaviorDefinition's condition becomes true.

    Probably the text fragment "cancels the remaining Activity instances and" in the table is wrong and should be removed. Otherwise, the execution semantics chapter should be extended accordingly.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 17:23 GMT

Table 8.51 ref error

  • Key: BPMN21-390
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19826
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "Table 8.51 presents the additional model associations for the Resource element."
    should be
    "Table 8.49 presents the additional model associations for the Resource element."

    "Table 8.51 presents the additional model associations for the
    ResourceParameter element."
    should be
    "Table 8.50 presents the additional model associations for the
    ResourceParameter element."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 7 Aug 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:31 GMT

Wrong table reference number

  • Key: BPMN21-387
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19770
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "Table 10.60 presents the additional attributes and model associations of the
    DataInput element."

    should be:

    "Table 10.60 presents the additional attributes and model associations of the
    DataOutput element."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Sun, 31 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:27 GMT

Wrong table reference number

  • Key: BPMN21-386
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19768
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "Table
    10.54 presents the additional attributes of the Property element."

    should be:
    "Table
    10.57 presents the additional attributes of the Property element."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Sun, 31 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:27 GMT

Contradiction - can or cannot show Data Object multiple times on a diagram

  • Key: BPMN21-388
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19771
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    p.206 states:

    Visual representations of Data Objects
    Data Object can appear multiple times in a Process diagram. Each of these appearances references the same Data Object instance. Multiple occurrences of a Data Object in a diagram are allowed to simplify diagram connections.

    p.368 states:

    Multiple depictions of a specific BPMN element in a single diagram is NOT allowed, except for Participants in a choreography (i.e., Participant Bands). For example, it is not allowed to depict a Task twice in the same diagram, but it is allowed to depict the same Task in two different diagrams.

    This seems like a contradiction. Only one of the above should be true.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Sun, 31 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:27 GMT

Wrong table reference number

  • Key: BPMN21-384
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19769
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "Figure 10.54 presents the additional attributes and model associations of the
    InputOutputSpecification element."

    I believe, this should not even be a figure, but a Table, and with different number:

    "Table 10.58 presents the additional attributes and model associations of the
    InputOutputSpecification element."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Sun, 31 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:27 GMT

Wrong name of object

  • Key: BPMN21-385
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19767
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "Table 10.54
    presents the additional attributes and model associations of the DataObject element."

    should be:
    "Table 10.54
    presents the additional attributes and model associations of the DataState element."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Sun, 31 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:27 GMT

Attribute name "error" should actually by "errorRef"

  • Key: BPMN21-383
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19765
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Table 10.96 states that there is attribute, called "error", while the XSD schema contains attribute "errorRef".

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 29 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 29 May 2015 22:14 GMT

Figure 10.57 does not show that InputOutputSpecification derives from BaseElement

  • Key: BPMN21-382
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19763
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Figure 10.57 does not show that InputOutputSpecification derives from BaseElement.

    The textual description and the related XSD schema correctly show that InputOutputSpecification derives from BaseElement. However, figure 10.57 does not have an arrow for this inheritance.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 28 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:38 GMT

Default value of DataStore.isUnlimited differs between Table 10.55 and XML Schema

  • Key: BPMN21-381
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19762
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Camunda Services GmbH ( Falko Menge)
  • Summary:

    Table 10.55 defines the default value of DataStore.isUnlimited to be false:
    isUnlimited : boolean = false

    However, the XML Schema says:
    <xsd:attribute name="isUnlimited" type="xsd:boolean" default="true"/>

    Proposal:
    Change the XML Schema to:
    <xsd:attribute name="isUnlimited" type="xsd:boolean" default="false"/>

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 27 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:09 GMT

Page 29, Section 7.2.2 - Fork and Join Differentiation

  • Key: BPMN21-376
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14349
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    BPMN says that you use a parallel gateway (diamond with a plus in it) to start a sequence of parallel paths, and another AND gateway to end it. The behaviors of these two gateways are different, but they look the same. Suggestion is that the first AND gateway, that starts the parallel split have a thin line, while the gateway at the end which actually waits for multiple inputs will have a thick line. This corresponds to the thin and thick lines around start and end nodes.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Choreography activities sharing message flow

  • Key: BPMN21-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15159
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    The spec allows multiple choreography activities to share the same
    message flow. Is that intended?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 5 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

The spec should clearly state what visual features are available for extensions and which are restricted to core spec

  • Key: BPMN21-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14879
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Mariano Benitez)
  • Summary:

    Right now there is no clear separation on which graphical features (like line thickness, type of lines, color, etc) vendors are free to use as extensions, and which are restricted for the specification to use.

    We should define which features we want to use in the spec and which ones vendors are free to use. The reason for this is that if a vendor chooses line thickness for some visual extension and in a revision we choose to use the same feature, the vendor is forced to change to adapt (most importantly end-users).

    For example: it is clear that color is open for vendor extensions, and we should pick lines (thickness, dotted, etc) as restricted for our use.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Notation for shared correlation properties

  • Key: BPMN21-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15070
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Filed for Alistar: Conversations / communications sharing correlation
    properties should be linked graphically.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Add Brief Description for Error and Escalation Event Definitions

  • Key: BPMN21-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14854
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    The other Event Definitions have a brief description of what they are. The Error and Escalation do not have this description.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Ambiguous statements about Sequence Flow

  • Key: BPMN21-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15030
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    In section 10.4.1, Event Concepts, (page 211 -241 PDF) there are some confusing statements about Sequence Flow. For example, one statement reads: "The Data Association for a Throw Event is performed when the Sequence Flow arrives at the Throw Event."
    Sequence Flow do not "arrive" in this context. The statements should be revised to refer to Tokens arriving at the Events to make consistent with the rest of the specification

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

How to represent Activities that might fit in more than one Lane?

  • Key: BPMN21-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15007
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Some activities (or other elements) may have properties that would allow them to be placed in more than one lane. For example, a Task could be assigned multiple resources. Is there a way to display the activity in multiple lanes? If not, how is would the most appropriate lane be chosen?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Redundancy in specifying data in processes

  • Key: BPMN21-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15054
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Frank Leymann)
  • Summary:

    There is an obvious redundancy in defining data in BPMN 2.0 (data objects, item definitions, messages, import of schema,...). The current spec does not say what is mandatory to be specified in which situation. At least the most common scenarios should clarified in the spec, e.g. what must be specified in case a WSDL doc is already available and the message described in this document should be used by a service task; or what must be specified in case in incoming message (by a start event) should be copied to a data object.

    I submitted a comprehensive document describing the situation to the issues@omg.org address, whithout any reaction since weeks. I am happy to send this document to the one assigned to this issue and discuss it.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Define rules for placement of multiple activity markers

  • Key: BPMN21-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15255
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    A Task or Sub-Process may have multiple markers (e.g., looping, compensation, etc.). But the spec does not explicitly define how the markers should be ordered. The examples in the spec are not consistent in how they are presented.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 17 May 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Data associations need to be revisited and their use clarified.

  • Key: BPMN21-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15253
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Data associations need to be revisited and their use clarified.

    Data association should have there own visual depiction. Using the look of association is misleading as data associations have a different meaning than associations.

    A data association is an edge between flow elements (data objects(ref) and data stores(ref))as such they should not cross boundaries of pools or can they? This is not clear.
    It is also not clear if data objects(ref) and data stores (ref) can be drwan outside lanesets or pools.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 13 May 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Rethink implementation attribute in Send/Receive/Service Tasks

  • Key: BPMN21-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15121
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Intalio, Inc. ( Tammo van Lessen)
  • Summary:

    Currently, send/receive/service/user/business rule tasks have an "implementation" attribute. Based on the information in the spec and from the process orchestration subgroup call, this attribute shall identify the technology to be used for interaction. This can be Web Service, WS-HT or any other protocol/coordination protocol.

    While this makes sense for human tasks and business rule tasks, there are a couple of inconsistencies with Send/Receive/Service tasks. Here is why:

    • Receive Task has an implementation attribute, a message event has not.
    • A Receive Task and a subsequent Send Task that deal with messages defined within the same operation may have different values for the implementation attribute. This is however probably not intended.

    My proposed resolution is to remove the implementation attributes for send/receive/service tasks. We should discuss whether this information is really needed or whether it could be inferred by the implementationRef of the interface/operation tuple. The information might be needed to determine in which technology an interface/operation is implemented. See also http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMNFTF-519#action_15739

    As an alternative, MessageEventDefinition would need such an attribute as well.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 8 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Multi-language labels for diagram elements

  • Key: BPMN21-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15043
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Signavio GmbH ( Gero Decker [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Most diagram elements carry a text label. The current version of the spec only allows to specify one string that is used as label.

    Multi-national companies often document their business processes in multiple languages (English, German, Spanish..). BPMN should therefore allow to set multiple labels per element (+ default language for the diagram)

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Lists of values

  • Key: BPMN21-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15158
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The word "list" is used a fair amount in describing attributes and model
    associations. I think these are intended to be sets in most cases,
    rather than lists (no ordering, no duplicates). In UML, the default is
    sets, you need to add "

    {ordered}

    " "

    {non-unique}

    " to get lists.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 5 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Messages and User Tasks

  • Key: BPMN21-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15171
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    It is possible that User Tasks may send and/or receive messages. Thus, the mechanisms built into Send, Receive, and Service Tasks should also apply to User Tasks.
    Also, Message Flow can connect to any Task. Thus, there should be some restrictions on this or messaging should be applied at the Task level instead of the individual sub-types

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 9 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Enforcability rules not complete

  • Key: BPMN21-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15071
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Filed for Alistar: Enforcability rules not complete.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

definitionalCollaborationRef should be 0..*

  • Key: BPMN21-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15065
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Table 10.1, definitionalCollaborationRef includes the phrase “For Processes that interact with other Participants,” which implies that Processes are Participants. In fact they are distinct elements in the metamodel.

    More significantly it states “The definitional Collaboration specifies the Participants the Process interacts with, and more specifically, which individual service, Send or Receive Task, or Message Event, is connected to which Participant through Message Flow.” However a Process could be linked to Participants in many Collaborations and so the multiplicity of [0..1] seems over-limiting.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

UML interface operations do not match BPMN interface operations

  • Key: BPMN21-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14876
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Mariano Benitez)
  • Summary:

    Currently interface operations in BPMN follow a "Document" model where all the arguments are wrapped in a single "Message" in and out of the operation.
    But in UML, interface operations follow the "RPC" model, where arguments are independent and each one has the "In, Out, InOut" classifier.
    This difference creates several problems when trying to relate/map BPMN and UML operations. Another side effect of the BPMN message model is that you cannot use simple data associations to fill the arguments of a service call. Since the operation is a single type, we have to use transformations to target the arguments (in my case we hide this complexity from the end user, and probably every vendor will do the same.

    So, if the FTF wants to have a reasonable integration with SoaML, we should fix this issue. The proposal is to adopt the UML model, with separate arguments instead of a single document in and out.
    We understand this is a major change, and a migration path from the Beta spec to the final one is a mandatory requirement.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Notation for expanded hexagons

  • Key: BPMN21-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15066
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Filed for soaML: When multiple hexagons (conversation/communication) are
    expanded, it isn't possible to tell which message flows go with which
    hexagons, because the hexagons disappear. Should have a grouping
    notation to show which message flow came from expanding which hexagons.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Integrate temporal and token semantics

  • Key: BPMN21-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15101
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Agile Enterprise Design ( Fred Cummins)
  • Summary:

    BPMN uses temporal semantics currently in process abstraction, and token flow in process execution. It isn't currently clear which semantics should be used for what purposes, or if they are compatible. Temporal semantics should be highlighted as one of the semantics for sequence flow, especially in conjunction with definitional collaborations, and it should be related to the token semantics.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Add Link Events to a sub-conformance level (Descriptive)

  • Key: BPMN21-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15217
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    There is a proposal to add conformance levels to BPMN 2.0. The proposal for a Descriptive level should include Link Events.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

A New Hook for Organizational Models?

  • Key: BPMN21-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14831
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    The hook in BPMN for Resource Models is through the Resource class. Generally, Organization Models are considered separate from Resource Models, but there is not a separate hook for Organization Models in BPMN, the Resource class would have to be used for Organization models, which could be confusing.
    The Resource class could be renamed to make it more generic, or a new class for Organization could be added.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 10.2.3: Task description needs revisiting

  • Key: BPMN21-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14796
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Suzette Samoojh)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: The description for Task needs revisiting

    • States that "A Task is used when the work in the Process cannot be broken down to a finer level of details". This doesn't reflect typical usage. It's not that it cannot be broken down, but rather many users simply choose to not break down further. Users model at the level of detail most appropriate for their needs and the needs of their audience.
    • States that "Generally, an end-user and/or applications are used to perform the Task when it is executed". What does this mean? A black-box Task is traditionally used for documentation processes, where what the task does is more important than how (whether by an end-user or by an application) it is done. If users know how it should be done then they would use a specialized task (i.e. User Task or Service Task) rather than Task

    Proposal: Reword to make it clear that Task has a purpose and usage in itself, beyond being a superclass for specialized tasks.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Choreography

  • Key: BPMN21-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14762
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: Missing choreography example

    Proposal: Add an example showing a choreography with several choreography activities, based on the existing example.

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should also be provided using BPMN notation.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Page 203, Table 10-26, The text describing the none and all behavior have been inverted

  • Key: BPMN21-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14538
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Page 203, Table 10-26, The text describing the none and all behavior of the behavior attribute have been inverted.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 8 Oct 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1: Section 11.2: Use of BPMN Common Elements [Choreography] -- Return removed TBD sections and complete text

  • Key: BPMN21-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14756
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Some sections with TBDs were removed for the Nov OMG posting. These sections should be returned and filled with content.
    This section should match a parallel section in Chapter 10 (Process).

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Exclusive gateway Choreography rules too restrictive, only sender needed

  • Key: BPMN21-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14686
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Decisions are prevented from being used Choreographies if not all
    participants have access to the information on which the decision is
    made. But if the activities following the gateway are all sent by the
    same participant, only that participant needs to know how the decision
    is made. Using an event-based gateway in this case is confusing, since
    there is no waiting for events to proceed to the activities following
    it. Some sided email below about this.

    Steve,

    > The Gateway would most likely be Event based. The Buyer is
    > probably not going to be aware of the data that would be
    > used to make the decision, particularly a change order.
    > Thus, the Buyer is just going to be waiting for one of the
    > three responses.

    Makes sense for the buyer, but this isn't a model of the buyer (and the
    Seller is making a regular decision, why isn't that shown?).

    It's also odd to see an event-based gateway in a choreography since
    choreography can't don't wait for events, the participants do. The
    figure looks right according to the spec, but I think the spec is too
    restrictive on regular decisions in choreogrpahies.

    Conrad

    Steve,

    > The Seller is making a regular decision internally, but the
    > rationale (i.e., data) used to make the decision is private
    > for the Seller. A Choreography can only use Exclusive
    > Gateways if the data used for them is public.

    I understand that's the rule, but I'm not sure it make sense. In this
    case, the activities following the gateway are all initiated by the
    Seller. The rule should be that the seller has access to the decision
    data.

    > The Buyer does not know ahead of time, what the
    > results of the decision will be since the Buyer has not seen the
    > Seller's internal data.

    And that's fine, because it isn't the Buyer who initiates any of the
    activities after the gateway.

    > All private Exclusive Gateways show up as Event Gateways in a
    > Choreography.

    This is too hard to explain, for example, who receives the event? The
    choreography itself can't received an event, and there's no indication
    that it's the Buyer (other than they Buyer is receiving in the
    activities after the gateway).

    For FTF discussion.

    Conrad

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 14.4 [BPEL mapping] Missing intermediate send event; mapping of participant ref

  • Key: BPMN21-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14761
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Type: Technical

    Description of issue:
    1. The spec misses the mapping for intermediate message send events
    2. The spec misses a mapping for send/receive events and tasks where the other party is specified not by a service-ref, but by a message flow to another participant.

    Proposal:
    1. Include that mapping into spec (see Visio)
    2. Introduce text describing how BPEL partnerLink is derived from either serviceRef or participantRef; use [serviceRef | participantRef] or similar notation as abbreviation.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 8.3.3 [Data] Inconsistency between usage of expressions in Sequence Flows and in Data Associations

  • Key: BPMN21-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14790
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Mariano Benitez)
  • Summary:

    We have created some guards around the use of unavailable data in expressions of Data Associations.

    The issue I am raising is about the use case when a conditional sequence flow uses an expression, and the data objects used in that expression are unassigned.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Add an example of Mutlple Start Events on the Boundary of a Sub-Process

  • Key: BPMN21-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14729
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Add an example of Mutlple Start Events on the Boundary of a Sub-Process as shown in an example for Issue 145 and described in the execution semantics section.
    Section 10.2.5, Beta 1 spec

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 10.2 Clearer separation between conceptual and visual model needed

  • Key: BPMN21-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14802
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: This section mixes conceptual meta-model statements with visual representation statements. A clearer separation of those concepts is needed.
    – p 127 (157 in PDF) "... inclusion of re-usable tasks and processes in the diagram" should be "... invocation of re-usable tasks and other processes from the process"
    – p 127 (157 in PDF) "... a process is not a graphical object. Instead, it is a set of graphical objects." A process is neither, it is a container for activities and other entities, all of which have a graphical representation.
    – p. 133 (163 in PDF) ff "A task is a rounded corner rectangle" should be "A task is represented by a rounded corner rectangle". This occurs frequently for all task types, so globally change "is a rounded corner rectangle" to "is represented by a rounded corner rectangle"

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Interactions supporting interactions

  • Key: BPMN21-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14663
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    When a business commits to an interaction with potential business
    partners, it might be that a particular partner needs only some of the
    interaction. This would be specified in another interaction diagram.
    The modeler needs to link these two interactions to say one supports the
    other, with the same semantics of the currently supports association,
    except applied to messaging rather than activities. The supports
    association should be generalized to cover interactions

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Inline Subprocess

  • Key: BPMN21-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14767
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: Missing example for Inline Subprocess

    Proposal: Add an example showing Inline Subprocess

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should also be provided using BPMN notation.

    Comments:
    From: mkloppmann created: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:33:25 -0600 (CST)
    Per the 2009.02.19 examples sub-team meeting:
    – This item is related to <a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-365" title="Notation for data flow in/out of a process">BPMN-365</a>

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1: Section 9.1 Collaboration: Expand description of Collaboration in section

  • Key: BPMN21-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14741
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    The background text for the description of Collaboration is rather thin. Add more description and a figure or two.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Multi-instance activity

  • Key: BPMN21-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14765
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: Missing example for multi-instance activity.

    Proposal: Add an example showing a multi-instance activities, including data assignments from a set of values to the individual parallel instances, and from the results of the parallel instances to a result set. This will require collaboration with the Data team.

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should also be provided using BPMN notation.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 Spec: Section 10.3 Data [Data]:

  • Key: BPMN21-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14771
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Beta 1 Spec: Section 10.3 Data [Data]: If start of an activity is guarded by availability of input data, there should be some visible indication of this in the diagram

    ##Source: IBM (Stephen A. White, wstephe@us.ibm.com)
    ##Original Issue: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-302
    ##Original Info: (Severity: Significant - Nature: Enhancement)

    This is number 5 of 12 issues submitted by Bruce Silver

    If start of an activity is guarded by availability of input data, there should be some visible indication of this in the diagram. ("Modeling" means you don't need to see the non-diagram attributes). It seems like BPMN 2.0 is trying to make data more a first class citizen, so this is needed.

    Comments:
    From: bruce created: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:29:56 -0600 (CST)
    In a user task, it is understood that time can elapse between task ready and active, whereas in service task there is no delay. So the temporal semantics are clear from the diagram. The issue is when service task is guarded by data "availability" - whatever that implies. If service task could incur delay between ready and active because of input data, this should be visible somehow in the diagram.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Roles for Entities

  • Key: BPMN21-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14698
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    There is no association between PartnerEntities and PartnerRoles, even
    though entities will play roles. The only link currently is through
    participant, requiring modification of a C models to link a role or
    entity, see <a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-520">http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-520</a>. An association
    between partner entities and roles would enable collections of C models
    to be grouped by roles, with roles reused by entities.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 11-4 description

  • Key: BPMN21-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14673
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The first sentence of the paragraph under Figure 11-4 (Conversational
    view choreographies) refers to Figure 11-3, but is about Figure 11-4, as
    far as I can tell. How is the parent-child relation referred to at the
    beginning of the paragraph reflected in the notation or metamodel? It
    says the Planned Order Variations as being keyed on Order Id, but the
    figure shows it keyed on Variation ID also (compare to description of
    Retailer Order and Delivery Variations Ack). The paragraph refers to
    Conversations instead of Communication.

    The second paragraph under Figure 11-4 refers to Detailed Shipment
    Schedule and Delivery Monitor, which aren't in Figure 11-3 or 4. The
    paragraph refers to Conversations instead of Communication.

    The third paragraph under Figure 11-4 refers to Delivery Planning and
    Special Cover, which aren't in Figure 11-3 or 4. It mentions messages
    spawning conversations, which isn't described anywhere else. The
    paragraph refers to Conversations instead of Communication.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Throughout Spec [Specification]: Define explicit separation of "modeling" vs "implementation" attributes

  • Key: BPMN21-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14775
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    This is number 1 of 12 issues submitted by Bruce Silver:

    Define explicit separation of "modeling" vs "implementation" attributes. The current "core" vs "extended" is nowhere close to this, since modeling needs much of the extended set. Modeling is about orchestration of "abstract" activities, abstract meaning they have a name (label), task type, perhaps markers like loop/MI/adhoc, and unique id of course, but not implementation properties. Abstract sequence flow has name, source and target refs; if conditional, the label is sufficient - you don't require a conditionExpression. Message flow or message event does not require a message attribute, timer event does not require TimeDate or TimeCycle (please rename it to Duration) attribute, error event does not require an error code attribute, etc. Those are for implementation; in modeling it's the diagram that counts, i.e. the label.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 - Section 14.3 [Execution Semantics]: Examples for the use of gateways are missing

  • Key: BPMN21-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14786
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Hagen Voelzer)
  • Summary:

    The use of some gateways should be described by example, e.g. complex gateway, inclusive gateway, multiple instances

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Annex A {Spec]: Add a section that documents the changes between V1.1 and V2.0

  • Key: BPMN21-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14788
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    We need to document the changes from V1.1. For example, we removed two attributes from User Task, because the same functionality is being handled elsewhere. We need to document such changes to make it easier for the implementers that need to migrate.

    Comments:
    From: mariano.benitez created: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:57:52 -0500 (CDT)
    We also dropped the concept of "streaming" data, so this should also be included in this section.
    Assignments elements are also removed, converted to DataAssociations.

    From: wstephe created: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:47:45 -0500 (CDT)
    Spec Draft version removed to prepare for BPMN 2.0 FTF

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Example of Lane, Laneset, and Partitions

  • Key: BPMN21-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14614
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Chapter 10.7 needs a more detailed example of how lanes can use process information/elements to partition flow objects

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Rules for exclusive gateway in choreography too strict

  • Key: BPMN21-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14666
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Exclusive gateways in choreography are required to use decision data
    accessible to all participants involved in the gatway. But if if the
    senders after gateway are the same, then receivers can use event
    gateways or event subprocess to wait for event that might never come.
    It isn't necessary for the receivers to have access to the decision
    data.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Concept definition for Business Process

  • Key: BPMN21-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14242
  • Status: open  
  • Source: PNA University ( Jean-Paul Koster)
  • Summary:

    Since you still have the concept definition for "Business Process" listed as "TBD" in the Glossary, PNA would like to propose the following definition:

    Business Process:

    A Business Process is a cooperation between several people and/or systems each performing a particular role and possible other entities such as departments within a company or organization, in order to produce a product or to deliver a service to a customer. Within BPMN a Business Process is described using a BPD.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Complex gateway

  • Key: BPMN21-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14764
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: Missing example for complex gateway.

    Proposal: Add an example showing a complex gateway.

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should also be provided using BPMN notation.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 Spec: New Annex?: Enumerate the validation rules of BPMN

  • Key: BPMN21-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14773
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    This is number 3 of 12 issues submitted by Bruce Silver

    Enumerate the validation rules of BPMN. Back in the old days when the BPDM guys kept saying BPMN 1.0 had no explicit rules or metamodel, you said it did but it was buried in the narrative. Now you have an explicit metamodel but the rules are still buried in the narrative, and inconsistent from one part to the next. Judging from v1.x it will take years to clean up the narrative, so just enumerate the rules in one place and say this overrides contrary info elsewhere in the narrative.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Initializing and updating properties is not straight-forward

  • Key: BPMN21-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14730
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    From examples meeting on 2009.03.26:

    When creating the looping example for <a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-281" title="V0.5.6: Section 10.3 Data [Data]: Assignments not defined"><strike>BPMN-281</strike></a>, it is not obvious how to initialize properties. Also, updating a property via a dataInputAssociation or dataOutputAssociation is unnecessarily complicated because sourceRef and targetRef are currently mandatory elements, but not really applicable for properties.

    Proposal:
    (1) Introduce a new entity "initializationAssignment" (or better name) as a contained element for property (and data object for symmetry reasons), which has the same structure as assignment, but with an optional "to" element.
    (2) Make dataInputAssociation::sourceRef and ::targetRef optional, likewise dataOutputAssociation::sourceRef and ::targetRef.

    Comments:
    From: trickovic created: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:00:15 -0500 (CDT)
    As per 4/6 BPMN 2.0 meeting: Defer <a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-471" title="Initializing and updating properties is not straight-forward">BPMN-471</a>.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

PartnerRole underspecified and misnamed

  • Key: BPMN21-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14661
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    PartnerRole does not specify the context of the role (is it a role in an
    organization?). The examples given (a buyer, seller, or manufacturer)
    could just be Participants, rather than PartnerRoles. The term "role"
    also conflicts with Participants, which are effectively roles in
    Interactions.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Basic gateway examples

  • Key: BPMN21-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14766
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: Missing examples for basic gateways.

    Proposal: Add three examples showing XOR, IOR and AND gateways.

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should also be provided using BPMN notation.

    Comments:
    From: mkloppmann created: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:31:13 -0600 (CST)
    Per the 2009.02.19 examples sub-team meeting:
    – Medium priority
    – Combine with <a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-310" title="Provide example: Basic process structure">BPMN-310</a>

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Depiction of diagram fragments

  • Key: BPMN21-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14303
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Reported by dga...@trisotech.com, Jul 08, 2009

    The spec should prescribe how diagram fragments are presented. (e.g.
    three dots at end of continuing flows, ...)

    Given that BPMN has very specific structural requirements, most diagram
    fragments in the spec (and elsewhere) are not valid BPMN models.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

optional source and target refs for data association

  • Key: BPMN21-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14704
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Bruce Silver Associates ( Bruce Silver)
  • Summary:

    dataOutputAssociation/@sourceRef should be optional, not required.
    dataInputAssociation/@targetRef should be optional, not required.
    This is to support non-executable models (<a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-381" title="Abstract BPMN Profile"><strike>BPMN-381</strike></a>), since these elements are part of the data interface of the parent node, which is unspecified in non-executable models. The other end of the association, the dataObject, is still required.

    Comments:
    From: ssamoojh@ca.ibm.com created: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:04:19 -0500 (CDT)
    Counterproposal - Rather than making the source or target optional, instead 'lighten' the spec text. The spec currently states that the source or target must be an ItemAwareElement. In the case of non-executable models, the source or target may be the FlowElement itself. So my proposal is to tweak the spec text, so as to allow this.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 10.5 Text duplicated from 8.3.10

  • Key: BPMN21-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14800
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: The first three paragraphs in section 8.4 are duplicates of the same paragraphs in 8.3.10 where gateways are introduced.

    Proposal: Replace paragraphs in 10.5 by a short paragraph and a reference to 8.3.10's gateway section.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1: Section 10.1.2: Use of BPMN Common Elements [Process] -- Return removed TBD sections and complete text

  • Key: BPMN21-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14755
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Some sections with TBDs were removed for the Nov OMG posting. These sections should be returned and filled with content.
    This section should match a parallel section in Chapter 11 (Choreography).

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1: Section 10.2.4 Performer: Relate Performer to Human Performer

  • Key: BPMN21-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14744
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Mainly Editorial:

    A HumanPerformer is a type of Performer, but there is no reference to this in the Performer section. There should be more description of how Performer can be used (e.g., through HumanPerformer).

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Page 046, Section 7.2, Message not listed as a BPMN element

  • Key: BPMN21-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14293
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Reported by dga...@trisotech.com, Jul 06, 2009

    The Message element is not listed in any of the categories

    Comment 1 by dga...@trisotech.com, Jul 10, 2009

    The Message element is not listed in any of the BPMN element categories

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 Section 8.3.17 Sequence Flow and 14.2.1 Sequence Flow Considerations

  • Key: BPMN21-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14759
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Beta 1 Section 8.3.17 Sequence Flow and 14.2.1 Sequence Flow Considerations (Execution Semantics): Add Exclusive conditional behavior from activities

    ##Source: IBM (Stephen A. White, wstephe@us.ibm.com)
    ##Original Issue: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-349
    ##Original Info: (Severity: Significant - Nature: Enhancement)

    Suggested by Michael Rowley: Add Exclusive conditional behavior from activities.

    "Perhaps there should be a new variant of the minidiamond symbol to show that they are exclusive (filled in black, perhaps?). For human activities, it would then be clear that the different flows are different choices that can be made by the user. In B4P they would also be the "outcome" of the task."

    This was discussed on a BLOG (<a href="http://kswenson.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/human-process-trouble-ticket/#comment-8886">http://kswenson.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/human-process-trouble-ticket/#comment-8886</a>)

    Proposal TBD

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Define "Pool"

  • Key: BPMN21-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14784
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Cory Casanave)
  • Summary:

    The term "pool" is used extensively in the specification yet the definition seems inconsistent and not tied to the meta model. Sometimes a pool seems to be the role of a participant in a process context. In other cases it seems to be the essential container of a process. It seems to be a graphical element but shows up on ends of associations and in definitions of the semantics. The term "pool" does not seem to have any semantic relevance to process.
    Examples:
    • While a normal Process exists within a Pool, a Choreography exists between Pools (or Participants).
    • A Pool is the graphical representation of a Participant in a Collaboration (see page 235). It is also acts as a "swimlane" and a graphical container for partitioning a set of Activities from other Pools, usually in the context of B2B situations.
    • Nor can Sequence Flow cross a Pool boundary.
    • For message exchanges between pools, Conversations are used to group several Message Flow
    • A Participant is a specific business entity (e.g., a company) or a more general business role (e.g., a buyer, seller, or manufacturer) responsible for the execution of the Process enclosed in a Pool.

    The semantics behind of pool should be clarified and the spec should not use graphical elements to define semantics.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 Spec: Section 14 BPEL Mapping: Better clarify the subset of BPMN diagrams that are BPEL-mappable (roundtrippable!

  • Key: BPMN21-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14770
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Bruce Silver Associates ( Bruce Silver)
  • Summary:

    Better clarify the subset of BPMN diagrams that are BPEL-mappable (roundtrippable!)

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 14.2.2 Activity (semantics):

  • Key: BPMN21-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14745
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Beta 1: Section 14.2.2 Activity (semantics): The state of a Data Object should be considered as a Performance Constrainst for an Activity Changing from the Ready to Active state

    ##Source: IBM (Stephen A. White, wstephe@us.ibm.com)
    ##Original Issue: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-411
    ##Original Info: (Severity: Critical - Nature: Enhancement)

    The state of a Data Object should be considered as a Performance Constrainst for an Activity Changing from the Ready to Active state.

    If a Data Object is not in the state defined as an input (e.g., "Approved"), then the InputSet should not yet be considered "available."

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Message flow to/from events in Collaboration diagrams

  • Key: BPMN21-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14653
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Send/receive events and tasks have the same meaning, but the
    Collaboration section only shows message flow to/from tasks and other
    activities. Clarify that message flow can be attached to send/receive
    events in Collaboration.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Event-based gateways in choreography should be exclusive

  • Key: BPMN21-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14668
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    An event-based gateway implies a message is being waited for, but
    choreographies can't receive messages, they have no central controller.
    One of the participants will have an event-based gateway internally, but
    the other will have a exclusive gateway. The choreography can use an
    exclusive gateway with no conditions, with the semantics is that exactly
    one of the following messages will be sent.

    Comments:
    From: conrad.bock created: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:53:49 -0500 (CDT)
    Email from Frank about conditions on exclusive gateways in choreographies:

    Hello Conrad,

    In my opinion there is no need to even have data as decision criteria.
    There may be a button, that a user presses (request xy..). Of course you
    can discuss, that the fact, that a button has been pressed is in itself
    data in the system. But it is a different kind of.

    So in the case of two senders there are two users and two buttons.
    Whoever presses first sends first.
    Whoever sends second is in a different branch of the choreography.
    That's how I understand it.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Page 070, section 8 list of Core elements

  • Key: BPMN21-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14327
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Reported by dga...@trisotech.com, Jul 29, 2009

    The figure 8-1 indicates "Infrastructure, Common Elements, and Services".
    Three Core sub-packages are listed in page 71 "Foundation, Service, and
    Common".
    Figure 8-2 shows "Foundation, Common, and Service".
    Section 8.1 describes "Infrastructure", Section 8.2
    describes "Foundation", Section 8.3 describes "Common Elements" and
    Section 8.4 describes "Services".
    The list of BPMN core elements indicated in thre first bullet of section
    2.1.1
    is: "Infrastructure, Foundation, Common, and Service packages."

    Is there 3 or 4 sub-packages and should we use the same naming convention
    within this section of the document?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 Section 15.1.2 Sub-Process Mappings: Table referenced is missing

  • Key: BPMN21-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14683
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Page 453. The first sentance of the section states:
    "The following table displays the mapping of an embedded Sub-Process with Adhoc="False" to a WS-BPEL scope. (This extends the mappings that are defined for all Activities--see page 450):"

    However, the table is not there.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1: Section 17 BPMN Example: Include full BPMN example for this section

  • Key: BPMN21-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14702
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Section 17 will be temporarily removed until the BPMN example is added.

    The section should have a full example with diagrams, XML, and supporting text.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Link Events - Constraints and Usage not clearly documented

  • Key: BPMN21-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14815
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Suzette Samoojh)
  • Summary:

    The Sequence Flow constraints around the usage of Link Events are not clearly expressed in the spec.

    Very simply, it should express that:

    • A Catch Link Event should have no incoming Sequence Flow.
    • A Throw Link Event should have no outgoing Sequence Flow.

    Instead the spec has several rather confusing statements (pgs 235-236) that make it hard to infer the simple behavior I described above.
    Statements like:

    • If the Intermediate Event is used within normal flow:
    • Intermediate Events MUST be the target of a Sequence Flow.
    • An Intermediate Event MUST be a source for Sequence Flow.
    • An exception to this: a source Link Intermediate Event (as defined below), it is not required to have an outgoing Sequence Flow.
    • A Link Intermediate Event MUST NOT be both a target and a source of a Sequence Flow.
    • A Link Intermediate Event MAY be the target (target Link) or a source (source Link) of a Sequence Flow, but MUST NOT be both a target and a source.

    Recommendation:

    • Tighten up and simplify the constraint descriptions for Link Events.
    • Refrain from introducing new terms "source" and "target", or if the new terms are needed, clearly relate them to the existing "catch" and "throw" terms.
  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

CorrelationClassDiagram missing conversation association end name

  • Key: BPMN21-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14657
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 8-18 (The Correlation Class Diagram) is missing the association
    end name listed in Table 8-32 (CorrelationKey model associations).

    Comments:
    From: wstephe created: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:40:19 -0500 (CDT)
    I was going to add an issue that would request to remove the conversation model association row from Table 8-32. The model association is uni-directional, so correlationKeys should appear in the Conversation table (11-1), but conversation should not appear in the CorrelationKey table (8-32).

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

This is a style suggestion to make diagrams clearer

  • Key: BPMN21-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14354
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    This is a style suggestion to make diagrams clearer. The XOR gateway allows two forms of diagram: empty diamond, and a diamond with an X in it. While redundancy is OK in general, the fact that different vendors make different choices. But an X and a cross look very similar. While the X should be allowed, the spec should indicate that it is preferred to use the blank option, with the eye to eventually eliminating the X.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Multiple processes per participant

  • Key: BPMN21-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14709
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    From side discussion with Frank: A single public interaction
    (choreography, collaboration, or conversation) might be supported by
    multiple internal processes, but the current metamodel only allows one
    process per participant. The multiplicity should be widened to *.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Notation for alternaitve data input/output sets

  • Key: BPMN21-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14738
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Notation for data input/output sets is missing. I/O sets have a similar
    execution effect as decision and merge gateways, so it seems like they
    should be visible.

    Comments:
    From: wstephe created: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:50:54 -0500 (CDT)
    The decision on this for BPMN 1.X was that there would be no notation for this since it would probably be too complicated. There was a non-normative suggestion that inputs that belong in the same inputSet could be connected to the same point on the activity, but we didn't want to have anything like pins. I haven't seen any other suggestions. If we had something to look at, then we could consider.
    But, in general, in probably should be deferred for now.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Conversation View

  • Key: BPMN21-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14763
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Type: Example

    Description of issue: Missing example for Conversation View.

    Proposal: Add an example showing a conversation view.

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should

    also be provided using BPMN notation.

    Comments:
    From: wstephe created: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:45:34 -0600 (CST)
    An example has been started. It needs to be finished (including XML).

    Also, we should use this issue to track the full text requirements for Section 9.5 "Conversations" (V0.9.1)

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

More description for "Process as a callable element"

  • Key: BPMN21-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14794
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Vishal Saxena)
  • Summary:

    ##Source: Oracle (Vishal Saxena, vishal.saxena@oracle.com)
    ##Original Issue: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-118
    ##Original Info: (Severity: Minor - Nature: Revision)

    On page 122 (152 in PDF) under fig 10-2 we describe process as a callable element. I think its a good idea to give small introduction.

    Comments:
    From: wstephe created: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:12:58 -0500 (CDT)
    The page and section numbers were updated to match the Beta 1 spec

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Multiple senders after event-based gateway in choreography

  • Key: BPMN21-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14667
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    About event-based gateways in choreography, the spec says:

    [Event-based] Gateways are used in Choreography when the data used to
    make the decision is only visible to the internal Processes of one
    Participant.

    On the right side of the Gateway [CB: I assume this means immediately
    after]: either the senders MUST be the same; or the receivers MUST be
    the same.

    If the decision criteria is private to one participant, how can there
    multiple senders after the gateway?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 10.5.5 Complex Gateway: The general description of Complex Gateways needs improving

  • Key: BPMN21-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14674
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The general description of Complex Gateways needs improving. An example or two would be good.

    Comments:
    From: wstephe created: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:49:07 -0500 (CDT)
    The version number was removed from the summary so that it will apply to the Beta 1 spec

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Exclusive Gateway Choreography Rule too Restrictive, starting new process

  • Key: BPMN21-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14737
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Filed for Dale Moberg. The rule illustrated by Figure 12-36 is that the
    choreography activities after an exclusive gateway must have the same
    receivers if the initiators are different. However, the receivers can
    be different if the activity starts a new process in the receiving
    participant, or if the receiving participant has access to the data in
    the decision from earlier in the flow. Steve says the discussions so
    far did not account for activites that start processes in the
    participants.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Correlation across conversations

  • Key: BPMN21-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14777
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The metamodel seems to be missing relations between the correlation
    information in multiple conversations of the same collaboration /
    choreography. For example, in Figure 11.3 (Conversation diagram
    depicting several conversations between Participants in a related
    domain) how does the process internal to Consignee handling the
    Consignee-Retailer conversation map its correlation information to the
    correlation info in the Consignee-Supplier conversation? Without this
    the Consignee conversations with the Retailer and Supplier will be
    uncoordinated.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Gateways in Choreography missing split or merge

  • Key: BPMN21-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14656
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The section on gateways in choreography covers splits (diverging)
    gateways but not merges (converging) for parallel, exclusive. Only
    merges are covered for complex gateways.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Allow a Process to be Ad Hoc (in addition to a Sub-Process)

  • Key: BPMN21-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14223
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Currently only Sub-Processes can be Ad Hoc. However, it would be useful for Processes to be Ad Hoc also. This would allow libraries of Ad Hoc Processes to be defined and re-used

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1 Section 15.1.2 Mapping to BPEL Activities: Message Mapping snippet refers to StructureDefinition

  • Key: BPMN21-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14711
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    The figure for the mapping of Message to BPEL shows a snippet that includes a StructureDefinition element. The actual attribute for Message is structureRef, which points to ItemDefinition.
    This figure should be updated.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 9 Collaboration [Choreography; Specification, Metamodel]:

  • Key: BPMN21-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14774
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    Section 9 Collaboration [Choreography; Specification, Metamodel]: Clarify that a pool represents a single BPMN process, not a "participant" meaning role or business entity

    ##Source: IBM (Stephen A. White, wstephe@us.ibm.com)
    ##Original Issue: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-299
    ##Original Info: (Severity: Significant - Nature: Enhancement)

    This is number 2 of 12 issues submitted by Bruce Silver

    Clarify that a pool represents a single BPMN process, not a "participant" meaning role or business entity. At least do this for a white box pool (aka private process); a black box pool (abstract process) is empty of activities, so its process is unknown and often labeled as role or business entity. Also remove the language that multiple pools in a BPD are about B2B. This is rarely the case. Multiple white box pools in a BPD are used when the processes involved have independent lifetimes and cardinality, and almost always when both pools represent the same business entity not B2B.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Provide example: Basic process structure

  • Key: BPMN21-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14769
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Matthias Kloppmann)
  • Summary:

    Description of issue: Missing example for process structure

    Proposal: Add an example showing process structure.

    Examples must be provided in XML, inline with the BPMN 2.0 XSD. If necessary, the example should also be provided using BPMN notation.

    Comments:
    From: mkloppmann created: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:30:43 -0600 (CST)
    Per the 2009.02.19 examples sub-team meeting:
    – Medium priority
    – The example should contain activities, events, gateways
    – Combine with <a href="http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPMN-316" title="Provide example: Basic gateway examples">BPMN-316</a>

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Page 251, Start Event on the boundary of a sub-process

  • Key: BPMN21-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14333
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    Reported by dga...@trisotech.com, Jul 29, 2009

    Is it still allowed to have Start and End Event on the boundary of an
    expended Sub-process?

    This was clearly stated and shown in BPMN 1.2. It is mentionned
    at page 251, but no example are provided.

    Is figure 7-8 page 69 valid?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

[Chroeography] Complete section 11.4: Events

  • Key: BPMN21-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14757
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Martin Chapman)
  • Summary:

    Complete 11.4.1, 11.4.2, and 11.4.3 on choreogrpahy events.
    Each sub-section may require more text, review and some example and pictures.

    Comments:
    From: trickovic created: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:37:38 -0600 (CST)
    Issue assigned to Steve/the choreography team.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Continue versus terminate in loop

  • Key: BPMN21-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14824
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    Introduction of end type break within a loop construct (continue construct is already there, implemented by the terminate end type which can be used inside a loop (multi instance activity) to end the loop).”

    This relates to what is e.g. said on page 407: “For a “terminate” End Event, the Sub-Process is abnormally terminated. In case of a multi-instance Activity, only the affected instance is terminated.”

    So, differentation is required between the two modes of getting out of the loop.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Add a User Event

  • Key: BPMN21-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14422
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    There are many situations where a human involved in a process triggers an Event. The current set of Event types do not adequate reflect this situation. Thus, a new type of Event, a User Event, should be added to BPMN.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Beta 1: Section 10.2.2 Human Interactions: The Parameter class should be described

  • Key: BPMN21-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14751
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BPM Advantage Consulting ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    The Parameter class is an association of ProcessRole. Parameter has its own attributes. Thus, there should be a short subsection that describes Parameter, including a table that describes the attributes.
    A general question: Parameter is a very generic name. Should this class be named something more specific?

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Parallel Gateway participants

  • Key: BPMN21-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14669
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Section 12.6.4 (Parallel Gateway) says "They create parallel paths of
    the Choreography that all Participants are aware of." Not all
    participants, only those involved after the gateway.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT