Issue 10384: no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess (bpmn-ftf) Source: CA Inc. (Ms. Donna Burbank, donna.burbank@ca.com donna_burbank@yahoo.com) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor Summary: There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Resolution: 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 Revised Text: Actions taken: October 6, 2006: received issue July 18, 2008: closed issue Discussion: Deferred: While the Issue may be valid, it represents a challenge that could not be solved during the time frame of the Finalization Task Force. Thus, this Issue will be deferred and handled by work on a later version of BPMN. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. To: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:25:05 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/12/2007 14:25:07, Serialize complete at 03/12/2007 14:25:07 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org To: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:25:05 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/12/2007 14:25:07, Serialize complete at 03/12/2007 14:25:07 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org To: Stephen A White Cc: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:07:35 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/12/2007 15:07:36, Serialize complete at 03/12/2007 15:07:36 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Sorry Juergen, I was suppose to send to the ftf. So, you'll see it again. -Steve Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM 03/12/2007 01:25 PM To Juergen Boldt cc Subject Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:08:17 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/12/2007 15:08:18, Serialize complete at 03/12/2007 15:08:18 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:38:36 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: Acdk6v9LTyqPvq5SRwOxeeMcwpfNHgBWDwcA From: "Cummins, Fred A" To: "Stephen A White" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2007 15:38:37.0791 (UTC) FILETIME=[D572EEF0:01C7664E] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:59:58 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: Acdk6v9LTyqPvq5SRwOxeeMcwpfNHgBWDwcAAAOMOoA= From: "Donna Burbank" To: "Cummins, Fred A" , "Stephen A White" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2007 16:00:02.0910 (UTC) FILETIME=[D37087E0:01C76651] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1345-3.6.1039-15052.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.648300-8.000000-1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. BPMN_FTF_Issue_10384.ppt To: "Cummins, Fred A" Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:58 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/14/2007 14:32:00, Serialize complete at 03/14/2007 14:32:00 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Fred, Expanded Reusable Sub-Process exist now (as part of BPMN 1.0). There are tools that can provide this capability. There may be challenges with this type of feature, but it should be up to the tool vendor to decide or modeler to decide if this is a feature they want to utilize. I not sure that the specification should be the place where this is restricted. The mapping of data and artifacts to/from a reusable process is handled, but it is not something shown graphically. -Steve "Cummins, Fred A" 03/14/2007 08:38 AM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org To: "Donna Burbank" Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org, "Cummins, Fred A" Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:40:09 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/14/2007 14:40:28 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. BPMN_FTF_Issue_103841.ppt Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:52:56 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: AcdmeMdo+Npk43DiSeecPc0p900x9gAAUfzg From: "Donna Burbank" To: "Stephen A White" Cc: , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2007 20:52:58.0770 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF77EF20:01C7667A] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1345-3.6.1039-15052.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.902000-8.000000-31 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:46:28 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/15/2007 20:46:31, Serialize complete at 03/15/2007 20:46:31 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:56:30 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: AcdndWwEtnfugU3ZSRqfzdwWtxXYCwAZc8GA From: "Donna Burbank" To: "Stephen A White" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2007 14:56:34.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A1FDF50:01C767DB] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1345-3.6.1039-15056.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.427000-8.000000-31 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org My preference would be Option 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:46 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:38:26 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: AcdndWwEtnfugU3ZSRqfzdwWtxXYCwAZc8GAAAOK9kA= From: "Rob Bartel" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Our preference is Option 1 as well. -----Original Message----- From: Donna Burbank [mailto:Donna.Burbank@EMBARCADERO.COM] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:57 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue My preference would be Option 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:46 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:50:33 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: AcdneA7QDmI8OdfbRJWKmCaqIVsdSAAvowOQ From: "Cummins, Fred A" To: "Stephen A White" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2007 01:50:38.0831 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9B877F0:01C76836] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org My preference is option 1, but it's not a strong preference. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:46 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To: Stephen A White Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF144 February 01, 2006 From: Suzette Samoojh Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:46:08 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.1HF346 | August 4, 2006) at 03/19/2007 13:46:09, Serialize complete at 03/19/2007 13:46:09 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable elements over embedded. An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the '+' symbol. Suzette Stephen A White 03/15/2007 10:46 PM To bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:23:30 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: Suzette Samoojh Cc: Stephen A White , bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Suzette Samoojh wrote: Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable elements over embedded. What Suzette meant to say is: "most users prefer to model expandable elements over embedded ones." And I agree that this (revised text) is the case. In my limited experience, people tend to model processes they intend to reuse as "independent processes". An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. IMO, this would be a satisfactory solution, BUT... Labelling the expandable subprocess a "reuse" at the point of use is much less important than marking the expandable subprocess as "reusable" at the point of definition, i.e., expansion. So whatever we do, the emphasis should be on making the reusable property visible in the expanded version. Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the '+' symbol. Agreed, and that leads me to vote for Option 3 or 4, with a slight preference for 3, IF we can find a small easily distinguished shape. Remember that the BPMN diagrams that show up in PDF documents tend to be photo-reduced. So Suzette's suggestion for an auxiliary symbol may be best. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." To: edbark@nist.gov Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org, Suzette Samoojh Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:27:40 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/19/2007 15:27:41, Serialize complete at 03/19/2007 15:27:41 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org OK. This discussion has generated a new option (Option 5) --a hybrid of what Suzette was suggesting and previous options. We use the down arrow for the collapsed Reusable and put the plus sign inside. We use an up arrow for the expanded Reusable and put the minus sign inside. As so: I've also update our site for this issue: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve Ed Barkmeyer 03/19/2007 01:23 PM Please respond to edbark@nist.gov To Suzette Samoojh cc Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Suzette Samoojh wrote: > Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an > expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this > convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, > expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable > elements over embedded. What Suzette meant to say is: "most users prefer to model expandable elements over embedded ones." And I agree that this (revised text) is the case. In my limited experience, people tend to model processes they intend to reuse as "independent processes". > An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a > square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe > the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This > notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a > Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc > Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. IMO, this would be a satisfactory solution, BUT... Labelling the expandable subprocess a "reuse" at the point of use is much less important than marking the expandable subprocess as "reusable" at the point of definition, i.e., expansion. So whatever we do, the emphasis should be on making the reusable property visible in the expanded version. > Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the > '+' symbol. Agreed, and that leads me to vote for Option 3 or 4, with a slight preference for 3, IF we can find a small easily distinguished shape. Remember that the BPMN diagrams that show up in PDF documents tend to be photo-reduced. So Suzette's suggestion for an auxiliary symbol may be best. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:50:06 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: Acdqb+4Gyel0RjMvQ7OUkvARWpATPwAXDnZA From: "Donna Burbank" To: "Stephen A White" , Cc: , "Suzette Samoojh" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2007 08:50:16.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7DADAF0:01C76ACC] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1345-3.6.1039-15064.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.154800-8.000000-1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org The issue that I have with this implementation, however, is that the .+. sign implies that the implementation requires the expandable/collapsible functionality for the reusable subprocess. The majority opinion seems to have been that this is the exception not the rule. We were going to put text in the specification to state that the expanded reusable implementation is optional, but having the +/- indicator leans towards making this the standard functionality. I.d prefer to use the up/down arrow graphic without the +/- symbol inside. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:28 PM To: edbark@nist.gov Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Suzette Samoojh Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue OK. This discussion has generated a new option (Option 5) --a hybrid of what Suzette was suggesting and previous options. We use the down arrow for the collapsed Reusable and put the plus sign inside. We use an up arrow for the expanded Reusable and put the minus sign inside. As so: I've also update our site for this issue: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve Ed Barkmeyer 03/19/2007 01:23 PM Please respond to edbark@nist.gov To Suzette Samoojh cc Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Suzette Samoojh wrote: > Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an > expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this > convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, > expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable > elements over embedded. What Suzette meant to say is: "most users prefer to model expandable elements over embedded ones." And I agree that this (revised text) is the case. In my limited experience, people tend to model processes they intend to reuse as "independent processes". > An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a > square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe > the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This > notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a > Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc > Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. IMO, this would be a satisfactory solution, BUT... Labelling the expandable subprocess a "reuse" at the point of use is much less important than marking the expandable subprocess as "reusable" at the point of definition, i.e., expansion. So whatever we do, the emphasis should be on making the reusable property visible in the expanded version. > Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the > '+' symbol. Agreed, and that leads me to vote for Option 3 or 4, with a slight preference for 3, IF we can find a small easily distinguished shape. Remember that the BPMN diagrams that show up in PDF documents tend to be photo-reduced. So Suzette's suggestion for an auxiliary symbol may be best. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: "Derek Miers" To: "'Stephen A White'" , Cc: , "'Suzette Samoojh'" Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:18:25 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdqcC+Nh6/O0HXYQzC0cqSk1aRwxAAZ7x1w X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Excuse me for appearing to step into the flow out of the blue . I try and keep up with all the postings here, but often am running so far behind that my opinion is of limited value. The problem with the arrow is that it is not very clear . in the sense that Ed referred to in his comment yesterday. What about the use of a Trapezoid or Hexagon. A Trapezoid has the benefit of being somewhat unusual and easily recognized. That can also carry the + and - Regards Derek Miers CEO, BPM Focus www.bpmfocus.org Tel: +44-20-8742 8500 Cell: +44-7703-17 8500 US Cell: +1 (714) 600 9010 (only when traveling in US) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: 19 March 2007 21:28 To: edbark@nist.gov Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Suzette Samoojh Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue OK. This discussion has generated a new option (Option 5) --a hybrid of what Suzette was suggesting and previous options. We use the down arrow for the collapsed Reusable and put the plus sign inside. We use an up arrow for the expanded Reusable and put the minus sign inside. As so: I've also update our site for this issue: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve Ed Barkmeyer 03/19/2007 01:23 PM Please respond to edbark@nist.gov To Suzette Samoojh cc Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Suzette Samoojh wrote: > Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an > expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this > convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, > expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable > elements over embedded. What Suzette meant to say is: "most users prefer to model expandable elements over embedded ones." And I agree that this (revised text) is the case. In my limited experience, people tend to model processes they intend to reuse as "independent processes". > An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a > square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe > the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This > notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a > Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc > Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. IMO, this would be a satisfactory solution, BUT... Labelling the expandable subprocess a "reuse" at the point of use is much less important than marking the expandable subprocess as "reusable" at the point of definition, i.e., expansion. So whatever we do, the emphasis should be on making the reusable property visible in the expanded version. > Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the > '+' symbol. Agreed, and that leads me to vote for Option 3 or 4, with a slight preference for 3, IF we can find a small easily distinguished shape. Remember that the BPMN diagrams that show up in PDF documents tend to be photo-reduced. So Suzette's suggestion for an auxiliary symbol may be best. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." To: "Donna Burbank" Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org, edbark@nist.gov, "Stephen A White" Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF144 February 01, 2006 From: Suzette Samoojh Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:34:09 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.1HF346 | August 4, 2006) at 03/20/2007 10:34:12, Serialize complete at 03/20/2007 10:34:12 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org That's a very good point. We need something that would accommodate all consumers (tool vendors that wish the expandable behavior and those that don't). So I'm back to being in favour of two separate symbols: the '+' and the arrow. Tool vendors that don't provide the expandable functionality would only show the arrow. Tool vendors that do provide this function would show both symbols. Suzette "Donna Burbank" 03/20/2007 04:50 AM To "Stephen A White" , cc , Suzette Samoojh/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue The issue that I have with this implementation, however, is that the .+. sign implies that the implementation requires the expandable/collapsible functionality for the reusable subprocess. The majority opinion seems to have been that this is the exception not the rule. We were going to put text in the specification to state that the expanded reusable implementation is optional, but having the +/- indicator leans towards making this the standard functionality. I.d prefer to use the up/down arrow graphic without the +/- symbol inside. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:28 PM To: edbark@nist.gov Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Suzette Samoojh Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue OK. This discussion has generated a new option (Option 5) --a hybrid of what Suzette was suggesting and previous options. We use the down arrow for the collapsed Reusable and put the plus sign inside. We use an up arrow for the expanded Reusable and put the minus sign inside. As so: I've also update our site for this issue: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve Ed Barkmeyer 03/19/2007 01:23 PM Please respond to edbark@nist.gov To Suzette Samoojh cc Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Suzette Samoojh wrote: > Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an > expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this > convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, > expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable > elements over embedded. What Suzette meant to say is: "most users prefer to model expandable elements over embedded ones." And I agree that this (revised text) is the case. In my limited experience, people tend to model processes they intend to reuse as "independent processes". > An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a > square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe > the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This > notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a > Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc > Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. IMO, this would be a satisfactory solution, BUT... Labelling the expandable subprocess a "reuse" at the point of use is much less important than marking the expandable subprocess as "reusable" at the point of definition, i.e., expansion. So whatever we do, the emphasis should be on making the reusable property visible in the expanded version. > Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the > '+' symbol. Agreed, and that leads me to vote for Option 3 or 4, with a slight preference for 3, IF we can find a small easily distinguished shape. Remember that the BPMN diagrams that show up in PDF documents tend to be photo-reduced. So Suzette's suggestion for an auxiliary symbol may be best. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:34:37 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue thread-index: AcdndZgjvu6RZyO7SkebScAbmfR9OQDhq3WQ From: "Jesus Orlando Sanchez" To: "Stephen A White" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2007 14:31:50.0464 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F5FDC00:01C76AFC] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org My preference is option 3 or 4 mainly because they are pretty simple. As Steve mention on option 3, other shapes should be considered, what about a semicircle? Regards, Jesus From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:46 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:55:15 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: Donna Burbank Cc: BPMN FTF Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Donna Burbank wrote: The issue that I have with this implementation, however, is that the "+" sign implies that the implementation requires the expandable/collapsible functionality for the reusable subprocess. The majority opinion seems to have been that this is the exception not the rule. We were going to put text in the specification to state that the expanded reusable implementation is optional, but having the +/- indicator leans towards making this the standard functionality. I guess I just don't understand what functionality Donna wants. I will Abstain on any resolution. -Ed P.S. Donna, my tool tells me you emailed this at 0150 PDT. Since you are so dedicated as to be doing OMG business at 2 AM, I don't want to stand in your way. -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 To: "Donna Burbank" Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org, edbark@nist.gov, "Suzette Samoojh" Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:24:06 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 03/20/2007 10:24:06, Serialize complete at 03/20/2007 10:24:06 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org The plus sign was suppose to signify that there was a lower level of detail (in the process hierarchy) as opposed to a Task, which doesn't have a plus sign. While tools may use the plus sign as a convenient location for the user interaction of expanding the sub-process (or opening a new window), that was never a requirement. Tools are allowed to use any mechanism for opening/expanding/closing/collapsing levels of a process. I can see where the use of the symbol and the original intent of the symbol get mixed, but I was leaning towards keeping the plus sign as the symbol for "Sub-Process" without worrying about the dynamics of the tools. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/20/2007 01:50 AM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc , "Suzette Samoojh" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue The issue that I have with this implementation, however, is that the .+. sign implies that the implementation requires the expandable/collapsible functionality for the reusable subprocess. The majority opinion seems to have been that this is the exception not the rule. We were going to put text in the specification to state that the expanded reusable implementation is optional, but having the +/- indicator leans towards making this the standard functionality. I.d prefer to use the up/down arrow graphic without the +/- symbol inside. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:28 PM To: edbark@nist.gov Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Suzette Samoojh Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue OK. This discussion has generated a new option (Option 5) --a hybrid of what Suzette was suggesting and previous options. We use the down arrow for the collapsed Reusable and put the plus sign inside. We use an up arrow for the expanded Reusable and put the minus sign inside. As so: I've also update our site for this issue: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve Ed Barkmeyer 03/19/2007 01:23 PM Please respond to edbark@nist.gov To Suzette Samoojh cc Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Suzette Samoojh wrote: > Within the current spec, the '+' symbol has consistently represented an > expandable element. So I think it would be a shame to diverge from this > convention and ask users to learn another symbol for expandable, > expecially since in my experience most users prefer to model reusable > elements over embedded. What Suzette meant to say is: "most users prefer to model expandable elements over embedded ones." And I agree that this (revised text) is the case. In my limited experience, people tend to model processes they intend to reuse as "independent processes". > An alternative option would be to keep the '+' and '-' symbol, within a > square, as we have currently. And then use an additional marker (maybe > the arrow as in Donna's proposal) next to it to indicate reusable. This > notation would then consistent with other similar cases. For example, a > Looping Subprocess has the '+' marker plus the looping marker. The Ad-Hoc > Subprocess has the '+' and the '~' markers. And so on. IMO, this would be a satisfactory solution, BUT... Labelling the expandable subprocess a "reuse" at the point of use is much less important than marking the expandable subprocess as "reusable" at the point of definition, i.e., expansion. So whatever we do, the emphasis should be on making the reusable property visible in the expanded version. > Baring this, my second preference would be for any option that keeps the > '+' symbol. Agreed, and that leads me to vote for Option 3 or 4, with a slight preference for 3, IF we can find a small easily distinguished shape. Remember that the BPMN diagrams that show up in PDF documents tend to be photo-reduced. So Suzette's suggestion for an auxiliary symbol may be best. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:52:00 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: AcdrOTOU5ahqUsz5R7Kae0c3riPb7QA2kekA From: "Shapiro, Robert" To: "Stephen A White" , "Jesus Orlando Sanchez" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2007 23:52:08.0927 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFF3F6F0:01C76C13] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org I think the use of .+. and ... is clear, whether or not the tool supports the click option. I don.t think introducing other shapes is a good idea: yet something else for the user to learn. Option 4 seems best. Robert Shapiro -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:44 PM To: Jesus Orlando Sanchez Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I updated option 3 on the site to show the other shape suggestions by Derek and Jesus. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve "Jesus Orlando Sanchez" 03/20/2007 07:34 AM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue My preference is option 3 or 4 mainly because they are pretty simple. As Steve mention on option 3, other shapes should be considered, what about a semicircle? Regards, Jesus From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:46 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To: "Shapiro, Robert" Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org, "Jesus Orlando Sanchez" Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:47:16 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 04/03/2007 10:47:20, Serialize complete at 04/03/2007 10:47:20 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org During the FTF in San Diego, we came up with another option, which uses double plus/minus signs for the reusable.: Note that we do not seem to have a consensus towards any particular option. If we cannot get a reasonable consensus real soon, I would recommend that we defer this issue. -Steve "Shapiro, Robert" 03/21/2007 04:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, "Jesus Orlando Sanchez" cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I think the use of .+. and ... is clear, whether or not the tool supports the click option. I don.t think introducing other shapes is a good idea: yet something else for the user to learn. Option 4 seems best. Robert Shapiro -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:44 PM To: Jesus Orlando Sanchez Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I updated option 3 on the site to show the other shape suggestions by Derek and Jesus. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm -Steve "Jesus Orlando Sanchez" 03/20/2007 07:34 AM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue My preference is option 3 or 4 mainly because they are pretty simple. As Steve mention on option 3, other shapes should be considered, what about a semicircle? Regards, Jesus From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:46 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue During the conference call today we modified Donna's suggestion (with Donna's approval) and came up with other suggestions. http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%2010384.htm Four options have been generated so far. The symbol for Embedded Collapsed Sub-Process remains the same in all for options. The other three situations have new symbols. The expanded versions of the Sub-Processes do not have a marker in BPMN V1.0, so these are new in all options. The Reusable Collapsed Sub-Process will have a marker change for all four options. Option 1: The first option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. The Reusable Collapsed has a boxed filled arrow pointing down (indicating that it can be opened). The Reusable Expanded has a boxed filled arrow point up (indicating that it can be collapsed). We decided that using arrows that point left and right would be too easily confusable. Arrows that are pointing up and down can be confused also, but not as easily as left and right. Option 2: The second option varies the marker symbol for Embedded and Reusable similar to option one. However, the same arrow is used for both Collapsed and Expanded, except that Collapsed has a filled arrow and Expanded has an unfilled arrow. The boxed minus sign is added to the Embedded Expanded. Option 1 and 2 could be combined for another option. Option 3: The third option uses the plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies the box around these symbols for Embedded and Reusable. Embedded retains the square and Reusable uses a hexagon. Other shapes could be considered. We decided against a circle, though, since this would be similar to the Event shape. Option 4: The third option uses the boxed plus and minus signs for the difference between Collapsed and Expanded and varies box fill Embedded and Reusable. Please review, send in comments or new options. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 01:52 PM To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS cc , "Cummins, Fred A" , "Greg Keller" Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue In that case, could we use the graphic below for the expanded Reusable Sub-process? It clearly differentiates from the Expanded Embedded Sub-process and is a clean visual representation. It.s basically the arrow with the point taken off. Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:40 PM To: Donna Burbank Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org; Cummins, Fred A Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Donna, Unless we get full agreement from the FTF to modify the spec so that Reusable Sub-Processes cannot be expanded (including those companies that do so now), then our solution for this issue will have to include the graphic marker for that situation. -Steve "Donna Burbank" 03/14/2007 08:59 AM To "Cummins, Fred A" , Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue I agree that the expanded doesn.t apply to reusable (i.e. reusable references another independent diagram). This is how I envision the graphical part working. I think the only change is to the graphical representation of the collapsed reusable sub-process (i.e. arrow instead of .+.). No other metadata or specification changes would be needed. (Powerpoint also attached for those of you who may not be able to read the graphic in the email). Donna Burbank Littleton office: (303) 730-7981 x139 | cell: (303) 641-2619 | home office: (303) 258-7172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: Stephen A White; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue Steve, I don't see expanded as applicable to reusable. The usage of a reusable process does not commit to which reusable process will be used until runtime. Even if it is a process by the same name, the specification of it could have alternative versions. Expanding also suggests that when expanded, it functions in the same context as the host process while the context is rather a function of the parameters passed to it by the host process. Instead of "expanded" there needs to be a way to deal with the input-output exchange. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen A White [mailto:wstephe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue We've discussed the topic of how to differentiate an embedded vs reusable sub-process a few times now. But we still don't have an adequate solution that will cover the four versions of the Sub-Process (collapsed vs expanded and embedded vs reusable). Please think about this topic this week and either send in some suggestions or come ready to discuss at the conference call on Thursday. If we don't nail something down this time, then I will suggest that we defer this issue. -Steve Juergen Boldt 10/06/2006 12:32 PM To issues@omg.org, bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject issue 10384 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Oct 2006 10:42:48 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Donna Burbank Company: Embarcadero Technologies mailFrom: donna.burbank@embarcadero.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: FormalNumber: Version: 1.0/1.1 RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description There is currently no way to graphically differentiate an Embedded Subprocess vs. an Independent Subprocesses. Suggested resolution is to use the "go to" arrow instead of a "+" (plus sign) for the Independent Subproces, similar to the off-page connector. This would indicate that the Independent Subprocess "goes to" another diagram. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or dis