BPMN 2.0 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

BPMN2 — Use "item" terminology more uniformly

  • Key: BPMN2-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14712
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    > Terminology is perhaps the hardest part of standards such
    > as BPMN. There is no way to pick terms that will be
    > acceptable to all potential users of BPMN. Different groups
    > will come into BPMN with different expectations. Some of
    > the terms will fit those expectations and other will not.
    > [From <a href="http://www.omg.org/archives/bpmn2-eval/msg00048.html">http://www.omg.org/archives/bpmn2-eval/msg00048.html</a>]

    In this particular case, the submission has one already ("item", as in
    ItemDefinition, ItemAwareElement, and ItemKind), introduced to
    accomodate informational and physical flows. I think it would be good
    to have uniform terminology covering both information and physical
    things, for example:

    Message Flow => Item Flow
    (Message appears redundant with ItemDefinition, or Message could be
    a subclass of ItemDefinition for those items that happen
    to be used in Item Flows)
    Data Object => Item Object
    DataInput => ItemInput
    DataOutput => ItemOutput
    DataState => ItemState
    DataAssociations => ItemAssociations

    So much of BPMN's market is modeling businesses in general rather than
    business software specifically, that I think it's important for adoption
    to have the appropriate terminology.

  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    DataInputs/Outputs/Objects, Messages, and other BPMN elements can be
    physical, as defined in ItemDefinition, and it would be better if the
    names reflected that possibility. However, implementations are too far
    along to change at this point.
    Disposition: Closed, No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT