Issue 15054: Redundancy in specifying data in processes (bpmn2-rtf)
Source: International Business Machines (Prof. Dr. Frank Leymann, nobody)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary: There is an obvious redundancy in defining data in BPMN 2.0 (data objects, item definitions, messages, import of schema,...). The current spec does not say what is mandatory to be specified in which situation. At least the most common scenarios should clarified in the spec, e.g. what must be specified in case a WSDL doc is already available and the message described in this document should be used by a service task; or what must be specified in case in incoming message (by a start event) should be copied to a data object.

I submitted a comprehensive document describing the situation to the issues@omg.org address, whithout any reaction since weeks.  I am happy to send this document to the one assigned to this issue and discuss it.
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
February 17, 2010: received issue
Discussion: 
This issue shall be addressed by providing an example. The FTF agreed to defer this issue to a future RTF, as examples are non-normative part of the specification.
Disposition: Deferred
End of Annotations:=====
iler: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500
To: bpmn2-ftf@omg.org
From: Juergen Boldt <juergen@omg.org>
Subject: OMG Issue Created 15054




From: webmaster@omg.org
Date: 17 Feb 2010 09:56:28 -0500
To: <issues@omg.org>
Subject: Issue/Bug Report

*******************************************************************************
Name:          Frank Leymann
Company:       IBM
mailFrom:      Leymann@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de
Notification:  Yes
Specification: OMG
Section:       10.3 Items and Data
FormalNumber:  BPMN 2.0
Version:       FTF Beta 1 for Version 2.0
RevisionDate:  August 2009
Page:          181 ff
Title:         Redundancy in specifying data in processes
Nature:        Clarification
Severity:      Significant
test:          3qw8
B1:            Report Issue

Description:

There is an obvious redundancy in defining data in BPMN 2.0 (data objects, item definitions, messages, import of schema,...). The current spec does not say what is mandatory to be specified in which situation. At least the most common scenarios should clarified in the spec, e.g. what must be specified in case a WSDL doc is already available and the message described in this document should be used by a service task; or what must be specified in case in incoming message (by a start event) should be copied to a data object.

I submitted a comprehensive document describing the situation to the issues@omg.org address, whithout any reaction since weeks.  I am happy to send this document to the one assigned to this issue and discuss it.