Business Process Definition Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Business Process Definition Metamodel — Open Issues

  • Acronym: BPDM
  • Issues Count: 38
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
BPDMF2-3 BPDM RTF Issue: Explicit modeling of decisions vs BPDM BPDM 1.0b2 open
BPDMF2-16 monitored change condition' should be owned by 'Change Condition Step' BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-37 Error in the superset of 'owned behavioral connection' BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-38 Missing Comment on Terminate BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-12 Wrong SuperType for EmbeddedProcess BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-6 Section: 4.4.2.5 BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-18 Missing notation for the 'End' Behavioral Change BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-15 BPDM XML Namespace BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-8 Typed Part' should be a sub-type of 'Property' BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-26 Statement should be a Packageable Element BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-21 ownedInteraction should belong to Interactive Processing Behavior BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-36 Generalization should be in Infrastructure, not CommonAbstraction BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-4 Section: Activity BPDM 1.0b2 open
BPDMF2-5 BPDM Beta 1 document dtc/07-07-01, in Section 6.3.2.6, page 35 BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-27 There is no way to have conditions on Facts BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-31 Cancel shouldn't be in the 'Happening and Change' library BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-13 Parallel Join BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-20 Processing Behavior Package and Simple Interaction Package BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-28 Property should not be navigable BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-25 There is a need to have ends that are logical failure BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-30 BPMN Universal Happening should use sub-properties BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-9 Useless ownership association BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-1 BPDM FTF - Alignment with BPMN 1.1 BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-14 Description of succession BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-29 Time Change should not be abstract BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-17 Missing notation for the 'Start' Behavioral Change BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-34 involving interaction-involved interactive part' should be a derived union BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-32 CommonAbstractions' should be an independant Package BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-11 There is a need to have 'ends' that are logical success BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-10 Typo error in 'conditionning behavioral step' BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-2 Spelling error in Activity Model description BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-7 Section: 4.4.2.11 BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-23 Sub-Properties are not used in the Universal Happening BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-24 Statement should belong to the Composition Model BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-35 involved interactive part has the same name has its superset BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-22 specified fact change condition' shouldn't have a superset BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-19 Missing notation for Interaction Role BPDM 1.0b1 open
BPDMF2-33 Align with Classifier from Infrastructure BPDM 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

BPDM RTF Issue: Explicit modeling of decisions vs BPDM

  • Key: BPDMF2-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11821
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Knowledge Partners, Inc. ( Paul Vincent)
  • Summary:

    At the BMI meeting on 10Dec07/Burlingame, there was a discussion on decision modeling and its relationship to existing modeling needs and standards. An action from the meeting was to raise the question of whether decision modeling was explicitly, or could explicitly, be “handled” within BPDM (and consequently, whether BPDM should model decisions more explicitly).

    {This was considered a possible issue for the BPDM(BPMN)2 RFP, but I am raising it with the FTF on the basis that it is up to the FTF to determine whether any “issue” is for a future version or not.}

    Comments:

    From my understanding of BPDM, a decision activity can simply be a BPDM activity, and modelled via Behavioral Step / Change Condition Step, which is probably too low level to be useful for talking about decisions in processes, but may be necessary for mapping decisions into processes.

    This is going to be difficult to answer without a formal definition of a decision model. And I am not going to define one at this stage of discussions! J However, it is probably safe to assume that a Decision Table is an instance of a Decision Model. And that invoking decision tables (and services) in BPM activities is pretty common. So hopefully the concept is not too alien to the BPM community. Disclaimer: of course issue may be revised as the terminology is refined.

    Personally, I think the answer is “yes” in that decision processes in BPDM (1/2) can accommodate decision services and processes (eg as custom external activities prior to a BPMN gateway), but BPDM (1/2) does not include business-level decision modeling, and that decisions and process are probably orthogonal, and that BPDM should simply reference any future decision model as a special activity as required.

    Related to this is some of the BPDM positioning I have seen which implies a (SBVR-type) business rule is also embedded in processes. It is far more likely that SBVR type business rules dictate and direct the development of processes, and impact their behaviour, rather than are directly included in processes. At best there is traceability from process definition to SBVR business rule and BMM constructs. Much more likely is the idea that processes embed decisions and “operational business rules” (rules with behaviour, IMHO) (which typically are represented as production rules in automated processes).

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b2 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

monitored change condition' should be owned by 'Change Condition Step'

  • Key: BPDMF2-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11134
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    monitored change condition' should be owned by 'Change Condition Step'

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Error in the superset of 'owned behavioral connection'

  • Key: BPDMF2-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11126
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Error in the superset of 'owned behavioral connection'

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Missing Comment on Terminate

  • Key: BPDMF2-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11130
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Missing Comment on Terminate

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Wrong SuperType for EmbeddedProcess

  • Key: BPDMF2-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11148
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Wrong SuperType for EmbeddedProcess

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Section: 4.4.2.5

  • Key: BPDMF2-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11235
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Brandenburg University of Technology ( Gerd Wagner)
  • Summary:

    The association end name "specified happening condition" for the association between Change and Change Condition must be replaced by "specified change condition".

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Missing notation for the 'End' Behavioral Change

  • Key: BPDMF2-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11132
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Missing notation for the 'End' Behavioral Change

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

BPDM XML Namespace

  • Key: BPDMF2-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11592
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    BPDM and BPMN are shortly going to merge in the next BPMN2 RFC.

    In order to ensure continuity between these various RFC, BPDM should use “bpmn” as its XML Namespace.

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Thu, 4 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Typed Part' should be a sub-type of 'Property'

  • Key: BPDMF2-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11145
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Typed Part' should be a sub-type of 'Property' instead of 'MultiplicityElement'

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Statement should be a Packageable Element

  • Key: BPDMF2-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11138
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Statement should be a Packageable Element

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

ownedInteraction should belong to Interactive Processing Behavior

  • Key: BPDMF2-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11135
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    ownedInteraction should belong to Interactive Processing Behavior

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Generalization should be in Infrastructure, not CommonAbstraction

  • Key: BPDMF2-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11127
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Generalization should be in Infrastructure, not CommonAbstraction

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Section: Activity

  • Key: BPDMF2-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12179
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    first iteration guard. The "first iteration" guard on successions from IterationEnd should have OCL specified.

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b2 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

BPDM Beta 1 document dtc/07-07-01, in Section 6.3.2.6, page 35

  • Key: BPDMF2-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11305
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Jon Siegel)
  • Summary:

    In the BPDM Beta 1 document dtc/07-07-01, in Section 6.3.2.6, page 35, the document reads

    The default succession is represented by a default Marker that MUST be a backslash near the beginning of the line representing the Succession.

    However, the diagram accompanying the statement shows a FORWARD slash. twice, in fact.

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

There is no way to have conditions on Facts

  • Key: BPDMF2-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11143
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    There is no way to have conditions on Facts

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Cancel shouldn't be in the 'Happening and Change' library

  • Key: BPDMF2-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11124
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Cancel shouldn't be in the 'Happening and Change' library

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Parallel Join

  • Key: BPDMF2-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11335
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Axway Software ( Sylvain Astier)
  • Summary:

    From Sylvain:

    p 46 – Parallel Join : in the sentence « Parallel Join is a Course Control Part Indication that the parts (in the sense of individuals) following it happen after the parts preceding them »

    Is the word « individuals » really appropriated ? We are positioning M0 elements (individuals) in perspective of M1 elements (Course Control Part) which have no M0 enactment...

    ð Antoine

    The parts mentioned in the description are the “following” parts (successor parts) of the course control part. These successors are usually a “typed course part” that represents.

    We could do two things to clarify the sentence:

    1. Verify that the term (individual) is explicity used other the specification as referencing M0 elements

    2. Change the sentence to mention “typed course part”

    « Parallel Join is a Course Control Part Indication that the typed course parts (in the sense of individuals) following it happen after the typed course parts preceding them »

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Fri, 7 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Processing Behavior Package and Simple Interaction Package

  • Key: BPDMF2-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11141
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    The Processing Behavior Package and Simple Interaction Package have a circular dependency

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Property should not be navigable

  • Key: BPDMF2-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11136
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Property should not be navigable

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

There is a need to have ends that are logical failure

  • Key: BPDMF2-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11142
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    There is a need to have ends that are logical failure

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

BPMN Universal Happening should use sub-properties

  • Key: BPDMF2-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11122
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    BPMN Universal Happening should use sub-properties

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Useless ownership association

  • Key: BPDMF2-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11147
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Useless ownership association between Behavioral Step Group and Processing Behavior

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

BPDM FTF - Alignment with BPMN 1.1

  • Key: BPDMF2-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11593
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    BPDM 1.1 has added some new shapes to the initial BPDM 1.0 specification.

    BPDM should provide metamodel supports for these new shapes.

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Thu, 4 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Description of succession

  • Key: BPDMF2-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11336
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Axway Software ( Sylvain Astier)
  • Summary:

    From Sylvain:

    p 47 – Succession : in the sentence “ A Succession indicates that that one Course Part ‘follows’ another in time ”

    Is this really true ? After all if we have:

    Task A -à Task B

    With an immediate succession between Task A and Task B, then Task A and B will be enacted at the same time, and Task A might actually last longer than Task B effectively contradicting the above statement since an ‘Immediate Succession’ is a kind of ‘Succession’.

    ð Antoine

    “Follows” include the fact that it could start at the same time. It says nothing about the duration (or the end) of task A versus task B

    I think Conrad had a better explanation in the discussion he had with Steve White.

    Conrad, could you please help clarify the sentence.

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Fri, 7 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Time Change should not be abstract

  • Key: BPDMF2-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11144
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Time Change should not be abstract

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Missing notation for the 'Start' Behavioral Change

  • Key: BPDMF2-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11133
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Missing notation for the 'Start' Behavioral Change

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

involving interaction-involved interactive part' should be a derived union

  • Key: BPDMF2-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11129
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    involving interaction-involved interactive part' should be a derived union

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

CommonAbstractions' should be an independant Package

  • Key: BPDMF2-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11125
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    CommonAbstractions' should be an independant Package

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

There is a need to have 'ends' that are logical success

  • Key: BPDMF2-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11149
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    There is a need to have 'ends' that are logical success

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Typo error in 'conditionning behavioral step'

  • Key: BPDMF2-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11146
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Typo error in 'conditionning behavioral step'

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Spelling error in Activity Model description

  • Key: BPDMF2-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11603
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    p 98 – second paragraph “emdedded”

    third paragraph “emdedded”

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Section: 4.4.2.11

  • Key: BPDMF2-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11236
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Brandenburg University of Technology ( Gerd Wagner)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 27, the text below the circle must be "End" instead of "Finish"

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Sub-Properties are not used in the Universal Happening

  • Key: BPDMF2-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11140
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Sub-Properties are not used in the Universal Happening

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Statement should belong to the Composition Model

  • Key: BPDMF2-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11139
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Statement should belong to the Composition Model

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

involved interactive part has the same name has its superset

  • Key: BPDMF2-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11128
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    involved interactive part has the same name has its superset

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

specified fact change condition' shouldn't have a superset

  • Key: BPDMF2-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11137
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    specified fact change condition' shouldn't have a superset

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Missing notation for Interaction Role

  • Key: BPDMF2-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11131
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Missing notation for Interaction Role

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Align with Classifier from Infrastructure

  • Key: BPDMF2-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11121
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Align with Classifier from Infrastructure

  • Reported: BPDM 1.0b1 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT