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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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"

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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".

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

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.

This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force