Business Process Model and Notation Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Business Process Model and Notation — Open Issues

  • Acronym: BPMN
  • Issues Count: 4
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

Why in paragraph 7.1.1 Uses of BPMN, definition of Collaboration (Global)

  • Key: BPMN11-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12243
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Banco de Chile ( Mario E. Cavieres)
  • Summary:

    I am beginner in BPM but in order to understand the BPMN standard, I send these questions: 1) Why in paragraph 7.1.1 Uses of BPMN, the definition of Collaboration (Global) Process (page 14) says: The collaboration process can be shown as two or more abstract process communicating with each other (see figure 7.3).... But the Figure 7.3 looks like as "two or more private (internal) business processes communicating with each other", comparing the Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 For more emphasis what I saying In the Figure 7.3 both process (patient and Receptionist/Doctor), all activities for both process are shown, this is not agree with definition of Abstract (public) process (page 13), that says: ....All other "internal" activities of the private business process are not shown in the abstract process.... 2) if the difference between Private (internal) business processes and Collaboration (Global) processes is the number of business entities, this mean that : Private (internal) business processes for only one business entity or specific organization. Collaboration (Global) processes for two or more business entities. What about Abstract (Public) processes, how many entities are or can be involved? 3) The Abstract (public) Processes are "abstract" because the activities of the another process or participant are not shown ?, using words of the definition of the Abstract (public) Processes.

  • Reported: BPMN 1.1 — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:55 GMT

Page 19 (PDF page 43) Table 8.2, definitionof "Pool".

  • Key: BPMN11-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11151
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    Page 19 (PDF page 43) Table 8.2, definitionof "Pool". Should lanes within pools be referred to as "Lanes" or "Swimlane"? Both terms are used. It would be good to be consistent.

  • Reported: BPMN 1.1 — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:55 GMT

Timer Events

  • Key: BPMN12-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12201
  • Status: open  
  • Source: TIBCO ( Justin Brunt)
  • Summary:

    With regard to Timer Events, Expression in B.11.8 doesn’t provide a solution to the example given in the specification such as in Table 9.8 for Timer Events which use TimeDateExpression B.11.18 which in turn use Expression.

    BPEL has three constructs For, Until and RepeatEvery. RepeatEvery can optionally be applied to the other two. The XSD excerpt is as follows:
    <xsd:element name="for" type="tDuration-expr" />
    <xsd:element name="until" type="tDeadline-expr" />
    <xsd:element name="repeatEvery" type="tDuration-expr" />

    Both the types of expressions extend tExpression which is defined as this:
    <xsd:complexType name="tExpression" mixed="true">
    <xsd:any processContents="lax"
    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
    <xsd:attribute name="expressionLanguage"
    type="xsd-derived:anyURI" />
    <xsd:attribute name="opaque"
    type="xsd-derived:tOpaqueBoolean" />
    <xsd:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
    And are further qualified in section 8.3 as:
    .Deadline expressions should return valid values of xsd:date and xsd:dateTime
    .Duration expressions should return valid values of xsd:duration

    We feel the BPMN spec is imprecise in this area in defining both in Table A.9 by their mapping to BPEL (TimeDate = until, TimeCycle = for). RepeatEvery makes no appearance in the BPMN spec.

    Therefore, we think the best solution would be for BPMN to add RepeatEvery. Is it possible that the BPMN spec may have believed TimeCycle actually fulfils the BPEL repeatEvery, the name would seem to bear that out? However it explicitly says that TimeCycle should be interpreted as BPEL 'for'. Therefore a second, larger, change to BPMN would be to re-map TimeCycle to repeatEvery and add instead WaitFor or some such mechanism.

  • Reported: BPMN 1.1 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT


  • Key: BPMN12-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12265
  • Status: open  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Dave Ings)
  • Summary:

    In the preface in the "Licenses" section it states "The companies listed above have granted to the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) a nonexclusive, royalty-free,paid up, worldwide license to copy and distribute this document". However other than the OMG itself no companies are listed above or in fact below in the preface. Surely this is bug - failing to list the copyrights of the companies that submitted the intellectual property. Note section 6.3 has a list of contributors. This is the URL I downloaded the PDF from: and the file was all linked from

  • Reported: BPMN 1.1 — Fri, 7 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT