SCE is replacing the SCEVocabulary element with the SCEKindSet element (and related elements).
PPMN uses the vocabulary mechanism and thus will need to be updated appropriately.

SCE is replacing the SCEVocabulary element with the SCEKindSet element (and related elements).
PMN uses the vocabulary mechanism and thus will need to be updated appropriately.

There are several issues with line 1015 sentence starting with: "Additionally, ...": the word "contain" (spelled "conain" in the doc) is used to mean composition, the attribute "parts" is used (no need to make part plural, it is already a collection), and finally it mentions an EntityComposition relationship which does not exist.

At line 993, Table 6 the text refers to a .formatRegistry, seemingly a class, which is not modeled or referenced in the text anywhere in PPMN or SCE.

Lines 1006 uses the class name EntityTypeRelationship which does not exist.

Line 1006 reads as follows: "The kind of EntityTypeRelationship is specified by the type property inherited from ElementRelationship". There is no inheritance between these two classes.

The property creationDate in Table 9, line 1021, is unnecessary. It already exists in parent class Entity.

Line 1006 is the only reference to EntityTypeRelationship. This raises the question around the two class names "EntityRelationshipType" and "EntityTypeRelationship" mentioned in the same section 8.1.4. Combined with the fact that fig. 3 shows a derived attribute "part" for EntityTypes, i.e. an aggregation of Composition RelationshipKind amongst associations of an EntityType instance suggest we are missing some constructs in the diagram. At the very least, I believe a clearer text explanation is warranted.

Section 8.1 starting at line 965 contains references to EntityComposition and EntityTypeComposition relationships. These are not defined or modeled in bmi/22-09-01 or dtc/22-01-04.

In figure 3, UML diagram Entities and EntityTypes, the name of the association owned by EntityType should be named "typeSnapshot" rather than "snapshotType". This naming format will also maintain consistency with the name "snasphot", the association end owned by Entity.

Line 991, link to "SemanticReference" lands on section 10 "Parties Model" when it should land on section 12.6.2 SemanticReference. Perhaps it simply can be removed since section 12 SCE Model will be removed from bmi/22-09-01 and a reference to SCE might suffice.

The "EntityComposition relationship is referred to in the text at lines 961, 963, 965, and 1016, but is not defined in the specification and does not exist. The mechanism of composition is defined by SCE RelationshipKind class Composition.

In Fig. 3 UML diagram Entities and Entity Types, the class representing a snapshot of an Entity Type is incorrectly named EntitySnapshotType. The correct name should be EntityTypeSnapshot, i.e. a snapshot of an entity type rather than the type of an entity snapshot. This is further underscored in line 964, where the term EntityTypeSnapshots is used.

At line 3574, the bookmark "RelationshipKinds" jumps to section 12.1.2 SCEElement. It does not provide any additional information about RelationshipKinds.

The SCE content is defined in the SCE specification (bmi/21-12-09).

The statement in line 959, "Entities may represent some other thing of interest through EntityURI property," is ambiguous. What kind of relationship is "represent"? Is it a reference, correlation, or some undefined relationship? Depending on the definition of this relationship, we may introduce some inconsistencies in the metamodel.
Furthermore, table 5 in line 984 defines "entityURI" as "A URI to the Entity". This is ambiguous and difficult to reconcile with line 959.

EntitySnapshot specifies an attribute creationDate when it already exists in its parent class Entity.

Section 8.11 Primitives shows UUID as a primitive (line 2356). However it does not appear anywhere in the document and may be unecessary.

Lines 960/961 state "All entities-related classes are ultimately SCEElements and as such have a name, id, URI." SCEElement in the SCE Metamodel has the following attributes: name, id, aliasID, and humanID. There is no URI.

Line 1105 refers to property outputEntities (plural). The property is singular output Entity and represents a collection. It must be noted that the symmetrical propety inputEntity is written in the singular form within the same paragraph.

The repeated text lines are next to each other. Figure 7 which uses lines 1078 and 1080 is the only thing that separated the identical verbiage.

Line 1103 refers to an inherited property OccurrenceRole which does not exists. Rather, it should refer to inherited propery role which is of type OccurrenceRole

This is odd and unnecessary, and could causes glitches in processing/searching

Annex A contains an informal mapping, but there should also be a mapping ontology, mapping to the PROV-O ontology from W3C.

The initial version was created using MOF2RDF rules, which are intended for metamodel management, not a deployable ontology.
Further, the ontology could use some documentation in the specification.

Without those, interchange becomes less predictable.
The nsPrefixes need adding as mof:tags org.omg.xmi.nsPrefix.

They are shown on Figure 2.

Parties models should support creation of Org Chart type diagrams.

Section 6.2 in bmi/22-09-01 (PPMN), section 6.2 in dtc/22-01-04 (SCE), and section 6.1.1 in formal/2011-01-03 (BPMN) show identical typographical conventions about references to graphical, non-graphical elements, and references to attributes or model associations. However, it appears that PPMN and SCE do not implement these conventions properly, certainly not in the manner observed in BPMN.

The description of attribute part of EntityType is ambiguous and needs elaboration. Additionally, part refers to the notion of composition while containment, a different concept, is mentioned in the text.

The initial text in chapter 8 is redundant with the text in chapter 7. One or the other should be changed to remove the redundancy.

Lines 908 and 909 specify that all elements in PPMN are specializations of SCE BaseElement or NamedElement. The SCE Metamodel has neither.

Line 906 specifies: The PPMN specification is organized into a "number" of packages. Although minor and perhaps subjective, the statement might be clearer and more meaningful by stating "set of packages".

Figure 2 moves the Delegation and Additional Relationships packages beside Pedigree and Provenance packages. The two diagrams should be more consistent or one should be removed.

Specification says "All elements in PPMN are specializations of SCE BaseElement directly or NamedElement." This is not the case. PPMN elements specialize SCERootElement.

PPMN doesn't have a way to graphically show relationships between elements that are otherwise captured as attributes. An example is the location of an Entity or a Party. The metamodel supports capturing the fact that an Entity is at a location and while locations do have a graphical representation, there isn't any given graphical notation for showing that the Entity is at that location. This significantly degrades the ability to graphically show where things are in relation to one-another.

1. PPMN Class specifies a fill of light yellow. It is, in fact, a radial gradient. The border is a solid black line, but there is a bottom-right shadow that is not mentioned. If it is immaterial, it should be explicit, like "may or may not have a bottom-right shadow."

2. Parties Class is specified correctly and is consistent with the diagrams, but it differs from all others. For example, it has no fill gradient or shadow.

3. Why "Parties General Class"? Why not just "Parties Class"?

4. "Parentheses" is misspelled.

5. SCE Class has a radial gradient fill rather than solid, as implied. The figure in the table features a grey line. In diagrams, when an SCE class appears in a PPMN diagram, it has a solid black line. When shown in a diagram belonging to the SCE package, it has a grey line.

6. External class fill is light-colored radial gradient grey.

The spec doesn't clearly specify the constraints on the types of items that can be imported for a PPMN model.

The description of Entity attribute part which is a derived attribute says: the Entity or Entities that is/are contained by the Entity.
This may be ambiguous and misleading since the notion of containment differs from the notion of composition. The attribute part is derived so we should be explicit about its computation which in this case is the collection of all EntityRelationships of kind Composition from SCE ElementRelationship RelationshipKind.

PPMN should reuse SCE definition, remove from PPMN

All "Adornment Value" links in section 8.7.1 resolve back to the Adornment Value header 8.7.1.1. They do not provide more information.
All "Annotation" links in section 8.7.2 resolve back to the "Annotation" header 8.7.1.2. They do not provide more information.

The content of 8.1 Entities lines 955 to 966 overlap with the content of 8.1.1 Entity.

Occurrences need the ability to aggregate Occurrences sub-Occurrences without having them necessarily be in a sub-chain. This supports the tying together of different types of Occurrences such as a Custody Occurrence and a Pedigree Occurrence. An example is the loading of grain from a farm into a shipping truck that already has grain in it. This is a combination of the grain as well as custody of the grain passing from the farm or depot to the shipping company.

Annotation and tAnnotation are defined in both PPMN and SCE Semantics XSD.

Recommend PPMN remove definitions and reuse SCE definition

Table 4 includes the following acronyms:
BHMN : not used anywhere in this specification
SDMNDI: not used anywhere in this specification
RFC: the acronym is used but refers to "Request for Comments" rather than "Remote Function Call"

Section 6.6 Structure of this Document overviews SDMN dtc/22-01-03 and its clauses. Rather, its topic should be PPMN and its clauses.

PPMN section 6.6: Structure of this Document incorrectly copied section 6.6 of SDMN and its clauses.

The current PPMN XSDs were developed with a faulty translation of UML class relationships to the XSD elements.
To resolve this issue we need to specify the XSD patterns that correspond to the UML class relationships and then update the XSDs.

Remove from PPMN. PPMN reuses SCE

Remove from PPMN, PPMN reuses SCE's definition

PPMN should reuse SCE definitions, remove from PPMN

DateTimeValue and tDateTimeValue is defined in both PPMN and SCE Sematics XSD.

Recommend PPMN remove definition and reuse SCE definition