BPMN 2.0 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

BPMN2 — Relationship navigation (both in MM and XSD)

  • Key: BPMN2-184
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14743
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Suzette Samoojh)
  • Summary:

    Beta 1, Section 8.4

    Currently the MM contains a bidirectional relationship between Interface and ServiceRef. This is also represented in the XSD, where the Interface complexType has an element that references a ServiceReference, and the ServiceReference complexType has an element that references an Interface.

    In the Samples meeting, it was raised that the Interface->ServiceReference relationship was not needed in the XSD. This discussion resulted in several outstanding questions:

    • If it doesn't belong in the XSD, should it be in the MM?
    • Tool vendors would find this convenient to have. But is that an implementation issue?
    • This likely isn't the only case. Need to have a broader discussion.
    • What is the purpose of the MM? How are we positioning it?
    • If the MM is for portability, then should the arguments used against the XSD also apply to the MM?
  • Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:
    • This issue has been carried over from the BPMN 2.0 submission team
    • Ongoing implementation projects do not indicate this is an issue. Close with no changes to the specification (as it is not a problem)
      Disposition: Closed, No Change
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT