We have been puzzling over the meaning of the MultiIinstance Paralllel Marker and believe that there’s a conflict in the description. We saw this in the 1.0 specification and then checked to see if the 1.1 specification had changed in any way but found it to be the same. We believe there needs to be clarification around the MultipleInstance loop MI_Ordering attribute with regards to the task marker symbol that should be used. Here’s the basic description (we’re giving table/figure references from v 1.1 draft of BPMN spec).… BPMN spec says that Standard loop will look like Figure 9.15 Image 1 And Multi Instance loop will look like Figure 9.15 Image 2 However in Table 9.20 Multi-Instance Loop Activity Attributes in the MI_Ordering attribute description it clearly states that… If set to Parallel, the Parallel marker SHALL replace the Loop Marker at the bottom center of the activity shape (see Figure 9.9 and Table 9.18). This suggests that a Multi-Instance Loop task that is set to sequential would actually have the Standard Loop Marker. The question is, which statement is correct, the first… “Standard Loop activities will have a marker that is a circle with an arrow and Multi-Instance Loop activities will have a marker that is two parallel vertical lines” Or the second… “A Parallel Multi-Instance activity will have a marker that is two parallel vertical bars. Standard loops and sequential multi-instance activities will have a marker that is a circle with an arrow on it”. These statements made in the BPMN spec seem to be contradictory. Now, to us, whether the task instances are performed in parallel or sequential is the most significant thing to display visually on the diagram. And therefore we actually think that the second statement should be true. However, whether the condition is evaluated once or on each loop iteration could also be significant enough to be visible in the diagram. We actually think that there are 3 significant pieces of information that BPMN is trying to convey with only 2 markers and associated attributes. § Separate Task instances are run in parallel. § Separate Task instances are run sequentially, and if so… o The loop exit condition is a Boolean expression and is re-evaluated on each loop iteration. o The condition is a Numeric expression that is evaluated only once before loop begins and specifies a maximum value for LoopCounter. We think that there are 2 possibilities to overcome this problem and clarify the meaning… 1) Add a new value to the Standard Loop TestTime attribute – OnceBefore – this states that the expression is numeric and specifies the number of loop iterations. Then remove the MI_Ordering attribute i.e. all Multi-Instance loops are parallel. It may be useful to introduce a new marker symbol to distinguish between OneBefore and Before/After (if it is deemed significant enough to been seen at diagram level). 2) Leave all the attributers as they are but introduce a new marker symbol for “The condition is a Numeric expression that is evaluated only once before loop begins and specifies a maximum value for LoopCounter” (i.e. a Multi-Instance Loop with MI_Ordering set to sequential. In either case, if all three pieces of information are deemed significant enough to been seen at diagram level, here are our suggestions… Multi-Instance + Parallel - use parallel bar symbol Standard Loop Before/After (Evaluated On every iteration) … You could, also distinguish between before and after by say, turning the symbol upside down for evaluate-before… Because the circle as a break in it then it suggests (maybe?) that the process engine stops to re-evaluate things each time round the loop. Multi-Instance + Sequential (or new Standard Loop + OnceBefore… Use circle with no break Because the circle has no break in it then it suggests (maybe?) that the process engine already knows how many times to go around.

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

In clause 9.7.2 and 10.1.4, it is stated that a data object artifact can be associated with a (Sequence or Message) Flow.
But the meaning of association with a Sequence Flow is not
clearly stated.

In Figure 9.40 there is an example of an association of a data object to a Sequence Flow between two Activities. Is such an association only permitted when the Flow is between two Activities? Is it permitted when the flow is between an Activity and a Gateway?

For example, could Figure 9.40 have two activities on the right, with an exclusive data gateway (decision) routing the data object to one or the other under certain conditions?

Is there a meaning to associating the data object with a Sequence Flow that terminates in an Event (throw or catch)?

Proposed Resolution:

When the flow originates from an Activity, the data object is an output of that Activity that is available at the time of the flow. When the flow terminates in an Activity, the data object is an input to that Activity that is available at the time the Activity starts. (This is the conclusion to be drawn from the current text. But these statements are independent of what is on the other end.)

If the flow originates from a gateway or event, BPMN assigns no meaning to the association with respect to that end, but a conforming tool may.

If the flow terminates in a gateway or event, the data object is an "input" artifact that is available when the Gateway decision is made, the Event is thrown, or the wait for the Event begins. The artifact, or the knowledge of its availability, may be used in making the Gateway decision or throwing or handling the Event.

The preferred representation of a data object "flowing" past a gateway or event is to show two (or more) associations:
output from the originating activity and input to the activity (or activities) that use the artifact. (And there should be an example of this.)

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

BPMN does not have a symbol for a physical storage facility. This is important to highlight for management process diagrams since such facilities that may be a source of signifant costs and delays. (This comment is intended for consideration in BPMN 2.0)

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

BPMN does not explicitly identify a model element for "approval." This is important to highlight for control issues and regulatory compliance concerns. An approval symbol is apparently common in management consultant diagrams. A equlateral triangle with one edge at the base has been used for this. (this issue intended for BPMN 2.0).

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

Page 1 (PDF page 25) Section 1 includes the text: "Note – This version does provide a non-normative mapping from BPMN to WSBPEL, but the BPMN specification itself is known to be incomplete with respect to capturing all the required information for WSBPEL. So the mapping is insufficient, in any case." This says one can't make a mapping from WSBPEL to BPMN. It doesn't prevent a mapping from BPMN to WSBPEL.

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

A Sequence Flow that has an Exclusive Data-Based Gateway or an activity as its source can also be defined with a condition expression of Default. Such Sequence Flow will have a marker to show that it is a Default flow. I believe that the condition expression of Default can be set to Sequence Flow that has an Inclusive Gateway as its source as well as the above mentioned. It naturally results from what is written on page 82 about Inclusive Gateways diverging behaviour

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

I would appreciate some precisions about the Signal Event. Initially
we intended not to have any data associated with it. Yet it has some
properties. I think it makes sense; we indeed need to associate
technical information such as the Name or Id of the instance that
raised it, as well as its TimeStamp. I want to make sure those are
not supposed to be business data. Also I think this part is under
specified, we need to further explain what kind of mechanism should be
used to "listen" to such events, (publish/subscribe pattern ?) as well
as how long such messages are supposed to be kept alive. For instance
on Figure 10.48 (Adobe 322) what is supposed to happen if "B
Completed" is raised before the upper sub process is ready to receive it
?

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

Common Gateway Features (Adobe p97): "an Gateway MUST NOT .. " and
"An Gateway MUST NOT.."

The following minor text modifications will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

A source Gateway MUST NOT be of type AND (Parallel). A assume that the gateway MUST NOT be of type XOR as well.

In this case, a Gateway can be Exclusive (XOR), but it cannot be Complex. Thus, the text
requires a modification

Figure A.35: intermediate link event should be used

The following minor figure modification will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Figure A.33 is missing an artefact next to the loop symbol to
specify it is an unfolded sub-process

Close, No Change: This item requested is not a graphical element of the BPMN 1.1 Specification.
There is another issue (Issue 10384), which will be closed and deferred to BPMN 2.0 that will add
such a graphical element
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, no change

Figure A.31 is an invalid BPMN 1.1 model (sequence flow pointing to
text, Intermediate Link Event should be used instead)

The following minor figure modifications will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Sequence Flow Connection (Adobe p72): "an exception to this: an Source link.."

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This item has already be fixed in the BPMN 1.1 specification.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, no change

Glossary (Adobe p290): under Result – "A result is consequence of
reaching an End Event. Results can be of different types, including:
Message, Error, Compensation, Link and Multiple" Link shall be removed

The following minor text modification will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Glossary (Adobe p321): under Trigger: "A trigger is a mechanism that
signals the start of a business process. Triggers are associated with
a Start Events and Intermediate Events and can be of the type:
Message, Timer, Rule, Link, and Multiple" 'Rule' shall be renamed to
'Conditional' and 'a Start Events' should be 'a Start Event'

The following minor text modifications will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Figure A.34 is missing an artefact to specify it is an unfolded
sub-process, also intermediate link events should be used.

The following minor figure modifications will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification. Note
that there is no standard icon to show that the Sub-Process is unfolded in the figure. This will be
done in BPMN 2.0.

• Figure A.30 is an invalid BPMN 1.1 model (message flows are not
correct, a gateway has two defaults outgoing path, ..)

The following minor figure modification will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Table A.10 (Adobe p76): "if the Error Event does has an ErrorCode.."

The following minor text modification will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Table A.10 (Adobe p176): "this will map to a throw element". There's
only one element allowed to throw errors and that is the
Error-End-Event. This should be fully specified to avoid possible
confusion with the non-existing intermediate-throw-error event

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to
the BPMN 2.0 RFP.
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, deferred

Table 9.13 (Adobe p75): "for an Intermediate Event within Normal
Flow: if the Trigger is an Error, then the ErrorCode MUST be entered.
This "throws" the error." This indicates that an Intermediate Event
can "throw" an error, which conflicts with Figure 9.5. I guess it
should be 'catches' instead of 'throws'.

The following minor text modification will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Glossary (Adobe p290): End Event - "End Event Results are Message,
Error, Compensation, Link, and Multiple" Link shall be removed

The following minor text modification will be made to the BPMN 1.1 Specification

Table 9.2 (Adobe p66): under "error" the description reads ".. if no
activity in the has such.." a word seems to be missing

Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This item has already been fixed in the BPMN 1.1 specification
Revised Text: None
Disposition: Closed, no change