Legacy Issue Number: 14747
Source: International Business Machines ( Suzette Samoojh)
Many classes in the visual model start with BPMN. For example, BPMNDiagram, BPMNShape, etc.
Given that this metamodel is part of the BPMN spec, including BPMN in class names seem extraneous. Certainly we don't do so in the semantic metamodel, so there is an inconsistency in style. Also, this style of naming generally isn't considered a recommended practice. What if BPMN is renamed in the next version?
Is there a real need for this pattern?
From: oliver.kieselbach created: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:29:07 -0600 (CST)
I personally don't have a strong opinion about the general naming. Two motivations were driving us here: 1) we wanted to have names which clearly differentiate between a visual MM element from the corresponding semantic element to avoid confusion when talking/discussing/describing elements. 2) when Maged has shown us the Diagram Definition concept and the examples for the UML intrumentation of this DD MM, he also used names like "UMLClassDiagram", "UMLConnector" etc.
Reported: BPMN 2.0b1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — BPMN 2.0
We need the prefix for Domain Specific refinement of the generic DD specification to differentiate it from the referenced element. This pattern was also done with
Disposition: Closed, No Change
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT