The BKPMN language is referenced in the spec, but it is not an official language yet

Remove references to specifications that do not yet exist.

The document contains references to BKPMN and BHMN that do not currently exist. We will remove these references.

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.

Defer to RTF

The resolution requires additional detail about what is "faulty" with the translations used as well as the heuristics used by the other specifications in the BPM+ family such as SCE and SDMN.

Remove from PPMN. PPMN reuses SCE

Remove tImport and Import from PPMN XSD

tImport and Import will be removed from the PPMN XSD.

Remove from PPMN, PPMN reuses SCE's definition

Adornments removed from SCE and PPMN

These elements are part of the Adornments capability that has been removed from SCE and PPMN. They will be removed from the PPMN schema.

PPMN should reuse SCE definitions, remove from PPMN

Adornments removed from SCE and PPMN

These elements are part of the Adornments capability that has been removed from PPMN. Therefore these elements will be removed from the PPMN schema.

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

Recommend PPMN remove definition and reuse SCE definition

DateTimeValue and tDateTimeValue removed from SCE and PPMN.

DateTimeValue and tDateTimeValue will be removed from SCE and PPMN. They have already been removed from the specification and the metamodel and will be removed from the PPMN schema.

The file and namespaces associated with the Parties related machine readable files of the PPMN specification currently use PM in the name and namespace rather than Parties. This has caused confusion in the community. The name should be expanded to Parties to resolve the issue.

Change PM to Parties

Update the file names and namespaces associated with the Parties machine readable files to use "Parties" instead of "PM".

SCE was removed from other BPM+ specifications including PPMN and established as a separate specification. PPMN needs to reference the machine readable files associated with the new SCE specification.

Use approved URIs established by the SCE FTF

The PPMN-related XSDs will be updated to use the URIs established for SCE files by the SCE FTF.

The specification includes figure 11 Occurrence kinds but the diagram is not complete and is not needed. Document number is actually dtc/22-11-05.

Figure removed.

Figure 11 Occurrence Kind will be removed.

Unlike PROV which makes it explicit.
All we have is creationDate, which could refer to a snapshot.

Defer to RTF

Needs further discussion. Defer to RTF.

Occurrences may be linked to Locations regardless of a Party, so it does not make sense to include the Locations package in the Parties model.

Cannot make the change in FTF

This will require creation of a new specification and cannot be done in time for this FTF. Deferred to RTF.

For example, I would have thought a Performer would always have an interest.

Defer to RTF

Requires discussion with the members. Deferred to RTF.

Figure 52 should show AcquisitionKind inheriting from SemanticReference. the other vocabs do have this.

Figure 52 is correct

AcquisitionKind inherits from OwnershipOccurrenceKind and Figure 52 shows that.

For best practice and consistency

Defer to RTF

Issue will be deferred to RTF.

It's unclear what the sequence should be, or even the meaning of grouping the Occurrences into a Chain. Is the "succession" to be based on timing, dependency, causation? Is it an error if they are not in time sequence?
How are the occurrenceHistory related to occurrenceRelationships and/or Dependencies?

BTW the definition should say "in the life of some Entity" as opposed to "NamedElement"

Defer to RTF

Requires further discussion. Defer to RTF.

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

Unconfirmed in metamodel

Seems to be an issue with the export, not the metamodel. Close no change.

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.

Defer to RTF

Defer to RTF.

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

Updating URIs

The metamodel had the URI and nsPrefix tags set but they may not have been exported to the XMI. The URIs were updated to include a current date.

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

Definition is part of SCE

The text is updated to reference the element from SCE. Further addition of constraints will be discussed in RTF.

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.

Comment too general.

The issue is too vaguely worded. Need more specific issues.

It's described in the text of 8.9 but not shown in a diagram or included in the metamodel. It seems useful, to represent the relationship from PROV.

Addressed in SCE. Remove Paragraph.

The Specializes element was removed from the metamodel because it is handled by the "Generalization" element in SCE. The paragraph defining Specialization will be removed.

This is one of the 4 classic types of process communication e.g. https://www.brcommunity.com/articles.php?id=b634 - we have the other 3 (input, output, enabler).

[IDEF0 uses different terms - Control instead of Guide and Mechanism instead of Enabler. Use of MVF would enable this]

Defer to RTF

Resolution requires further discussion. The issue will be deferred to RTF.

It's not helped that the descriptions of the properties of OccurrenceRelationship use "dependent", and the properties of Occurrence (Table 14) use "dependency" for both predecessor (OccurrenceRelationships) and occurrenceDependency. It's pretty hard to determine what's canonical vs what's derived. I think that OccurrenceRelationship is intended to be derived from OccurrenceDependency (which involves the more detailed flow of Entities). Another confusing aspect is that OccurrenceDependency is used for outputs: the source of such Dependencies is the Occurrence rather than the Entity produced. Normally (e.g. in UML) the source of a Dependency would be an Entity and it's dependent on the Occurrence that generated/updated it. I think it might be better to rename it. Further confusing is that the PPMNLibrary has a PPMNRelationshipKind of Dependency.

Defer to RTF

This issue will be deferred to RTF.

3 mentions in the text of 8.2 and 8.2.1: should be ActivityOccurrenceType

Reference to ActivityType updated to ActivityOccurrenceType

All references to ActivityType updated to ActivityOccurrenceType.

At the moment people would be excluded, based on the definition "An individual concept or informational or physical artifact". However there may be use cases where it's required to track chain of custody of a person e.g. a prisoner, a baby/minor, a patient, a VIP, a witness, an asylum seeker, a dead body, a mummy. All being held and transported and transferred between parties.

Update definition to allow for other things as Entities.

The definition will updated to expand the range of things that can be tracked as Entities.

At the moment it's self-referential "Custody indicates that the source element has custody of the target element."
There are nuances and legal aspects to consider.
For example, if someone is working for a company does the company or the employee have "custody" of the Entity they're working on? Legally it's the Company.
If an Entity is lost or stolen does the finder, or thief, have custody? Legally they do not, apparently.

Updated definition of Custody

The definition of Custody will be updated to include "immediate charge or control".

It's not clear whether this should be in scope (probably not), but at minimum something should be said about it. There are other standards that could be used for contact info, e.g. vCard, and OMG Commons has basic support for identifiers, and the GLEIF ontology has registration information. In general there are several aspects not addressed, several important for provenance - especially being able to identify the party.

• naming
• registration (for companies)
• jurisdiction
• identification (many schemes, including for non-human agents)
• entity type (for companies, but could be used for minors/prisoners)
• date created/born and ceased
• software/hardware version (for non-human agents)

Defer to RTF

Defer to RTF to enable further discussion of scope.

It repeats "is an input":
Input indicates that the target Entity is an input to the source Occurrence is an input during the course of the Occurrence

Remove duplicate verbiage

The duplicate verbiage needs to be removed.

One says "Output indicates that the target Entity is an output of some kind of the Occurrence.."
and the other says "Product indicates that the source Occurrence produces or creates the target Entity during the course of the Occurrence."
It seems both Product and By-product should be subtypes of Output (should at least be documented if not supported by the metamodel) but there is no definition of what would make a Product.

It's unclear if either would encompass destroying the Entity.

Product and Waste Definitions updated

Product and Waste are more specific kinds of Output. The definitions have been updated to reflect this.

Many people will want to use PPMN just for tracking occurrences (which is the level that PROV works at). Understanding how to do this is made a lot more complex by the fact that all the metamodels are presented along with the type/process level information.
Proposal: have the instance/occurrence level information in their own self-contained metamodels and the Type extensions separate.

Defer to RTF

This will require more analysis than time permits. Defer to RTF.

The definition "The time that the Occurrence had the dependency on the Entity” is unclear in usage when the Occurrences themselves have both a start and end.
I think the property could safely be deleted.

Removed time attribute

It's unclear what the attribute should be set to and how dependencies that have a duration will be handled. Therefore to remove the ambiguity the attribute will be removed.

That would allow for treating a whole chain as a single occurrence for purposes of abstraction/drill down, and address inconsistencies in the current metamodel (e.g. it would seem that a single Occurrence cannot have a subject Entity or interestedParty since they are properties specific to OccurrenceChain).

Defer to RTF

Initial review suggests this may be a beneficial change. Requires additional analysis of impact to metamodel.

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

OccurrenceRole and OccurrenceRoleType are both defined

The issues says that OccurenceRole does not exist. However, the element is there in the specification.

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.

Duplication not found

The duplication can't be found in the document. The text has been fixed in a previous resolution.

It adds nothing over EntityType

Defer to RTF

Requires further discussion. Defer to RTF.

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.

Defer to RTF

Initial discussions show that further analysis and discussion of the resolution is required. Defer to RTF.

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

Remove EntityShapshot.creationDate

The property creationDate of EntitySnapshot will be removed from Table 8 and the metamodel.

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.

EntityComposition and EntityTypeComposition names Fixed

EntityComposition and EntityTypeComposition names have been updated to their correct names - EntityRelationship and EntityRelationshipType, respectively.

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.

Defer to RTF

Requires further discussion. Defer to RTF.

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.

SemanticReference already removed.

The element SemanticReference was removed from SCE and has been removed from PPMN as well in previous resolutions.

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.

Duplicate of PPMN 21

This is a duplicate of 21 and has already been fixed in PPMN-152. Unable to link the issue so just closing this issue.

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.

EntitySnapshotType is correctly named

The name is correct because it is the type of a Snapshot, not a Snapshot of a type.

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

Element already removed, Figure updated.

The element has already been removed from the primitives. However, the figure still showed the element. The figure will be updated.

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

Issue already been addressed.

This issue was addressed in a previous resolution and is no longer an issue. The creationDate has been removed.

The definition says "The AttributedTo relationship is a kind of AssociatedWith relationship that captures the fact that an Entity was created or transformed by some unknown activity or action of a Party."

However even if the activity detail is known, there may still be value in giving someone specific (out of all those who may have played some role) credit or responsibility for the Entity e.g. in case of support or other inquiries.

Update AttributedTo definition.

The current definition for AttributedTo is

"The AttributedTo relationship is a kind of AssociatedWith that captures the fact that an element was created or transformed by some unknown activity or action of a Party."

This will be updated to

"The AttributedTo relationship is a kind of AssociatedWith that captures the fact that some activity or action of a Party created, transformed, or destroyed an element."

See the PPMN FTF2 Ballot 4 Convenience Document (dtc/2024-07-01) for details.

In PPMN DerivedFrom::derivee is used to represent the Entity FROM which something was derived; however in English it means the derived element - which is the other named end.
Quoting a definition:
"In linguistics, a derivee is a word that is formed from another word by adding affixes or changing the shape of the root. For example, the word "runner" is a derivee of the word "run".

In general, the word "derivee" means something that is derived from something else. The specific meaning of the word will depend on the context in which it is used.

Here are some examples of how the word "derivee" is used in a sentence:

In mathematics, the derivative of a function is its derivee.
In linguistics, the word "runner" is a derivee of the word "run"."

Change "derivee" to "derivationSource"

Change the attribute "derivee" to "derivationSource" and update the attribute definition to reflect that name change.

If only as an exemplar. For example, the standard graphical formats, HTML, PDF, programming languages, XML, XMI etc

Defer to RTF

This issue will be deferred to RTF.

These terms all inherit from SCE::SemanticElement which is supposed to have a conceptURI. Though not mandatory in the metamodel it seems bad practice that none of the official library elements have such.

Deferred to RTF

This issue will be deferred to RTF for further discussion.

Parties models should support creation of Org Chart type diagrams.

Defer to RTF

This issue will be deferred to the RTF.

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

Defer Mapping to PROV-O

This issue is being deferred to RTF.

They are shown on Figure 2.

Defer to RTF

This issue will be resolved in RTF after further discussion.

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.

Issue already addressed.

The issue was addressed by two other issues: PPMN-27/PPMN-106 and PPMN-71/PPMN-92.

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.

Issue already addressed

The text referenced is not in the document. This has already been addressed in previous resolutions.

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.

Already addressed

The diagram was updated in response to other issues and no longer needs to be addressed.

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

Overlap is OK

The narrative of 8.1 is an overview of the section whereas 8.1.1 has the specifics for Entity. Therefore overlap in the narratives is actually expected.

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.

Defer to RTF

This issue will be deferred to the RTF.

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.

Modify OccurrenceRelationship and OccurrenceRelationshipType to include Composition

OccurrenceRelationship and OccurrenceRelationshipType are specializations of ElementRelationship and ElementRelationshipType, respectively. They are currently used to signify sequencing relationships between Occurrences. These elements could also be used to aggregate Occurrences as suggested by the issue. It would mean removing or changing how the predecessor relationship is calculated. This proposal suggests reusing "Transition" instance of RelationshipKind (from SCE) to represent "predecessor" occurrences. The predecessor property of Occurrence has therefore been updated to a derived property that will be calculated based on OccurrenceRelationships with kind set to Transition to account for that requirement. This also allows the use of other relationship kinds, especially "Composition" which would address the issue.

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.

Fix Metamodel Color-Coding section

There are several issues raised within this one OMG issue. They will be addressed as follows:

1) No Change. The color is essentially yellow.
2) No Change.
3) Change "Parties General Class" element name to "Parties Class".
4) Fix spelling of "Parentheses"
5) Update the associated image to use an example from the model and update the text to include that the line around the box is black.
6) No change.

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.

Merged with PPMN 27

This is similar and addressed by PPMN-27/PPMN106.

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

Resolved by removal of SCE Section

The SCE section has been removed as part of PPMN FTF2 Ballot 1. Therefore this issue has already been addressed.

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.

Text of Section 8 introduction Updated

The introductory text of section 8 will be updated to remove the redundancy. It will more specifically describe the elements of PPMN.

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

Addressed by PPMN-83

This issue was addressed by PPMN-83. SCE was moved to its own standard. References to those elements were updated per that specification. In doing so, this issue was addressed.

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

Addressed by PPMN-83

This issue has already been addressed by PPMN-83. SCE has been removed and captured in a separate specification. All references to it have been updated to address that resolution. No further change is needed.

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".

Current wording is sufficient

The current wording is sufficient.

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.

Just additional Detail

Figure 2 provides a bit more detail than what is needed in the previous Figure. Therefore, no change is needed.

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"

Erroneous or unused acronyms removed or fixed

Assuming this now refers to Table 3. Acronyms will be fixed.

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.

Change outputEntities to outputEntity

Change the name in the text to match the attribute name "outputEntity". This occurs in multiple locations.

It's unclear how to use Snapshot generally, and how the creationDate is supposed to tie in with the Occurrence(s) that updated it.

The scope of a snapshot is not clear, and EntityRelationship is not timestamped in the same way.
If an Occurrence creates and removes some EntityRelationships involving an Entity, how is that represented? ActivityOccurrence::resultingEntityRelationship is not sufficient.

Defer to RTF

This issue will be deferred to the RTF.

Unlike other relationships this has subclasses for the different types of derivation. But also a DerivationKind (though indirectly linked via DerivationType) with largely the same Library of instances (DerivedFrom, QuotedFrom, RevisionOf, SourcedFrom), though missing subclass DescendantOf (which is self-referentially defined).

BTW there's a missing word "one" in the following under Figure 24
"DerivationTypes support the definition of the expected kinds of derivations that might result in the generation of one EntityType from or more others."

Remove DerivedFrom subclasses and add DescendantOf DerivationKind

The inconsistency will be removed by removing the subclasses of DerivedFrom, adding an association from DerivedFrom to DerivationKind (similar to other typed elements), and adding DescendantOf as a DerivationKind to the library.

It inherits source and target but does not explain the meaning of the direction. I'd guess that the target is the more canonical and the source is the alternate but it should be spelled out.

Directionality doesn't make any difference

The direction of the relationship is symmetrical - the direction doesn't matter. It simply means that one can be substituted for the other and vice-versa.

It's not clear what isUnique means in practice. For example 8.4.9, what does it mean for a ResponsibilityRelationship to be unique?
I assume it means unique to a specific Entity (it should say) but, if isUnique=true, does it allow any time overlap of responsibilities? What if the responsibility is delegated - won't the original still hold?

Defer to RTF

This issue will be deferred to RTF.

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

Recommend PPMN remove definitions and reuse SCE definition

New SCE Specification Does Not Include Annotation

The new standard for SCE no longer includes the Annotation element so there will be no conflict once PPMN and PMN are updated with the new SCE specification.

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.

Update text and diagrams to describe EntityRelationship and EntityRelationshipType

The current specification does not provide a detailed description of the relationships between Entities. These are intended to be specified by the EntityRelationship.kind property whose type is SCE RelationshipKind. the parts are the Entities pointed to by a EntityRelationship with a kind property set to "Composition". The text will be updated to describe this and a diagram will be added as well to show these relationships.

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.

Update text to describe relationship of Part to EntityRelationshipType

The current specification does not provide a detailed description of the relationships between EntityTypes. These are intended to be specified by the SCE RelationshipKind. The text will be updated to describe this and a diagram will be added as well to show these relationships. The part derived property is computed based on the EntityRelationshipTypes that have a kind of "Composition".

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

Update EntityRelationshipType to inherit from ElementRe Mark this proposal as ready to be scheduled and voted in a ballot.After this action tlationshipType

EntityRelationshipType should inherit from ElementRelationshipType, not ElementRelationship. Also, the type is specified by the kind property, not the type property. Update the text to say this.

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.

Duplicate of PPMN-3

This issue is a duplicate of issue PPMN-3 and will be closed or merged.

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

Replace text of Section 6.6

Replace the text of Section 6.6 with the text contained herein that describes the structure of the PPMN specification.

PPMN should reuse SCE definition, remove from PPMN

Adornments no longer necessary

Adornments were added to enable organizations to add their own metadata to PPMN and PMN elements. However, MEF is already a standard and supports the same capability. Therefore adornments will be removed from specification and from the XSDs. MEF will be used instead.

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.

New SCE Standard

A separate standard has been created for SCE. PPMN and PMN will be updated to use that standard. Further, SCE vocabularies have been replaced by KindSets. PPMN and PMN will switch to that mechanism.

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.

Removing SCE from PPMN and Updating Dependencies

A separate standard has been created for SCE. PPMN and PMN will be updated to use that standard. Further, SCE vocabularies have been replaced by KindSets. PPMN and PMN will switch to that mechanism.

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

Remove SCE sections from PPMN.

A separate specification has been created for SCE. That specification will be referenced from PPMN.

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.

Text related to SCE will be updated to align to finalized SCE.

A separate specification has been created for SCE. Text will be updated to align with that specification. More specifically, references to SCEElement will be changed to either BaseElement, if the element is not intended to be a root element in the model, or RootElement, if it is intended to be a root element.

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.

Extensions can be handled using MEF.

Adornments will be removed from PPMN since MEF provides a more flexible capability and is already a standard.