Figure 10.39 states that Arbitrary Cycle is known as Workflow Pattern #16. This is not correct. Arbitrary cycle is Workflow Control Pattern # 10 in Van Der Aalst's documents. Recommend the 16 in the Figure description be changed to a 10.

Figures 10.18 and 10.19 are presented as though they are logical equivalents in the description above 10.19. However, In Figure 10.19 it is possible both Condition 1 and 2 could be true causing all three transitions to be traversed. This is not possible in 10.18 because of the exclusive gate. To make the two diagrams behave the same, the default slash should be added to the Condition 1 transition coming from the Inclusive gate on diagram 10.19. This will insure either Condition 1 XOR Condition 2 is traversed, but not both inclusively as is possible in the current spec. If the diagrams are not to be taken as logical equivalents, the text just under Figure 10.18 should be changed to make this clearer and the Activity names should be made different so equivalence is not implied.

I don?t know if this has come up in the BPMN RTF already? apologies if old news. TThe DMN beta followed BPMN?s external reference scheme of a prefixed ID value, but in the FTF version they changed to it to something like href=?[DMN filepath]#[ID]?. They say that the BPMN way is ?flawed? because it could lead to accidental ID collisions.?? I don?t understand why referencing a physical storage location in lieu of a proper namespace is less ???flawed? but my question is whether BPMN is moving to do it the DMN way.?? Seeing as DMN has specific pointers to BPMN elements, and I would expect some future BPMN to have specific pointers to DMN elements, I don???t see how the two standards could have totally different methods of external reference.

The Description for LoopCondition does not seem to be correct in "..., plus the timing when the expression SHALL be evaluated". The timing seems to be determined by the TestTime attribtue. If that is true, the "...plus ..."phrase should be taken out.

For the moment there is not MetaModel for BPMN. For MetaModel I mean a class diagram that shows the elements of the language and their relationships. In the paper Birgit Korherr, Beate List: Extending the EPC and the BPMN with Business Process Goals and Performance Measures. ICEIS (3) 2007: 287-294 authors give one proposal. It is very important to provide an OFFICIAL MM for BPMN, since it will bring clarity to the language.

Hello, after reading throuh the named chapter about Sub-processes, I could not find a clear statement on the allowed number of "None Start Events" and "None End Events". Out of the spec one might have the feeling that a Sub-process always have a dedicated entry point from the "outside", which entry point is represented by a "None Start Event", and the sam epplies to End events/exit points. I could not find a statement regarding this, nor any overall principle out of which it could be concluded. It would maybe make sense to enrich the specification with this information.

the issue I'm reporting is a typo only: Chapter 9.4.2.3 contains information regarding reusable sub processes. The initial sentence introducing this chapter is as follows: <sentence> A Reusable Sub-Process object is an activity within a Process that “calls” to another Process that exists within a BDP (see Figure 9.10). </sentence> >From my point of view the listed abbreviation BDP is misspelled, I would expect BDP for Business Process Diagram. It's really a minor issue, but anyway I would like to point to

In BPMN Formal/08-01-17, Section 9.4.3.8, Reference Task, the first paragraph refers to Activity, while the second paragraph and the associated Table 9.31 refer to Task. For clarity and correctness, the first paragraph should also refer to Task.

To fix: Change the word "activity" to "Task" in the first sentence. Change the word "activities" to "Tasks" in the second sentence.

In the specs, it is stated that a gate can be designated as the 'Default' Gate' for Excusive Data-based gateway and Inclusive Gateway. It is stated in the specs for Gates that
"For DefaultGates: The Sequence Flow MUST have its Condition attribute set to Otherwise"
However, The Condition Type attribute for a Sequnce Flow can only be
Expression
None
Default

Should the specs state that "For DefaultGates: The Sequence Flow MUST have its Condition attribute set to Default"
Please confirm.