BPMN 2.1 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

BPMN21 — BPMN 2.0 Spec Problems (from Typo's to More Serious Issues)

  • Key: BPMN21-299
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16063
  • Status: open  
  • Source: iGrafx (Corel Inc.) ( Kim Scott)
  • Summary:


    * Section 2: Table 2.3, note ‘a’ [page 7]: Should be “Multiple incoming connectionsÂ…” [incoming vs. outgoing]

    • Section 7: Tables 7.1 and 7.2 (and others?): Missing 'a' in front of 'company' in "An Activity is a generic term for work that company performs"
    • Section 7: Table 7.2, Activity [p. 32]: The spec seems to consistently use the spelling “Sub-Process” for sub-processes. Merriam-Webster indicates that “subprocess” is the correct form of the word (i.e. that sub is simply a prefix) and does not offer a hyphenated alternative (even though Microsoft Word complains ‘subprocess’ is misspelled
    • Table 7.2, Choreography Task [p. 32]: Missing "or more" in "Each Choreography Task involves two (2) Participants", as they can specify more than 2 Participants.
    • Table 7.2 Conditional Flow [p.35]: Typo; should be ‘is’ vs. ‘are’ in "A Sequence Flow can have a condition Expression that are evaluated" (or should be "Expressions that are").
    • Table 7.2 Compensation Association [p. 35]: The activity that is the target of the Compensation Association is missing the compensation indicator.
    • Section 8.3.1 Artifacts, Text Annotation [p. 71]: May contradict itself on open rectangle. Says “A Text Annotation is an open rectangle that MUST be drawn with a solid single line (as seen in Figure 8.16).” and then “text associated with the Annotation can be placed within the bounds of the open rectangle.” Isn't that "...MUST be placed within"? Why MUST you draw the open rectangle if text doesn't go within it, per Figure 8.16?
    • Section 10.2 Activities, [p.153]: completionQuantity says "This number of tokens will be sent done any..." and the 'done' should be 'down'.
    • Section 10.2.3 Tasks, Receive Task [p. 161]: "Once the Message has been received, the Task is completed." Is this worded correctly? If this Task doesn't do anything after the Message is received, then why use it instead of a Receive (Catch) Message Event?
    • Section 10.2.5 Subprocesses, page 177: The following is missing Timer (at a minimum; also missing Parallel Multiple?): “The Start Event trigger (EventDefinition) MUST be from the following types..."
    • Section 10.2.5 Subprocesses, page 177, Figure 10.30 is incorrect; it does not show the start event in upper-left corner like text says.
    • Section 10.2.8: pages 190 & 191, Figures 10.47, 10.48, and 10.49 contradict Table 12.8 on page 382 & 383 on the location of the multi-instance indicator (marker) for Collapsed Subprocesses. I assume Table 12.8 is correct.
    • Section 10.4: page 233: The word 'trigger' should be 'result' in the following sentence in list item 2: "The throwing of a trigger MAY be..." (Items 1 & 2 say "Events that catch a trigger" and "Events that throw a Result." So triggers are caught and results are thrown, correct?
    • Section 10.4.6, page 276, Figure 10.98: An Intermediate multiple event marker is used for a start event-based gateway, and it should be a start event marker (single line vs. double on the Event within the Gateway).
    • Section 10.4.6, page 277: The following seems to be missing Escalation Events at a minimum: “...or by running an Event Handler without canceling the Activity (only for Message, Signal, Timer and Conditional Events, not for Error Events).”

    * Section 10.8, page 309: Figure 10.1 was updated, but the references to activity names in the Figure were not updated in the first and second paragraphs of Section 10.8. For example “Â…in Figure 10.1 might execute or perform an extra Activity between Task “Receive Issue List” and Task “Review Issue List.””

    • Section 11.4.1: Choreography Task [p. 327, 332]: The text is unclear about whether Participants can be multi-instance sequential, but I believe they can. As such, the language on page 327 of “The marker for a Choreography Task that is multi-instance MUST be a set of three vertical lines” and

    on page 332 of “The marker for a Sub-Choreography that is multi-instance MUST be a set of three vertical lines” seems incorrect and too limiting. If multi-instance sequential can be used, then three horizontal lines are also allowed (as is the 'loopback' repeat?).

    • Section 13.2.2 Activity [p. 429]: The fifth bullet says "(proposed for BPMN 2.0)" when this is the final spec, and non-interrupting EVent Handlers are part of the spec. This should be removed.
  • Reported: BPMN 2.0 — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT