Issue 9113: Business Process Diagrams (bpmn-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Significant Summary: I've been checking the BPMN for the connections, My question/comment is that why the spcification didn't introduce a type of connections that compines both Message and Flow (A connection that does both functions at the same time, it models the sequence and also models that data/message is being passed from the source object to the target object). Without having that type of a connection a diagram will contain many objects connected by two connections (one for the sequence and the other for the message) which leads to complexity in the diagram layout. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 21, 2005: received comment July 26, 2006: moved to bpmn-ftf April 19, 2007: closed issue Discussion: Discussion: The basic question of the Issue was deemed invalid in that BPMN does provide a mechanism to bind Data Objects through association as shown in the Final Adopted Specification (FAS) Figure 9.35. Thus, the concern about the complexity in the diagram layout, for this particular reason, is unwarranted. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 21 Oct 2005 10:09:13 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Hossam Badawi Company: IBM mailFrom: hbadawi@eg.ibm.com Notification: Yes Specification: BPMN Section: Business Process Diagrams FormalNumber: formal/05-08-07 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: May 3, 2004 Page: 28, other pages Nature: Enhancement Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProducts; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description I've been checking the BPMN for the connections, My question/comment is that why the spcification didn't introduce a type of connections that compines both Message and Flow (A connection that does both functions at the same time, it models the sequence and also models that data/message is being passed from the source object to the target object). Without having that type of a connection a diagram will contain many objects connected by two connections (one for the sequence and the other for the message) which leads to complexity in the diagram layout. To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:43:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 02/17/2006 15:43:26, Serialize complete at 02/17/2006 15:43:26 Based on our discussion at the Tampa F2F, we have a proposed resolution to this issue. The resolution and related information about the Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm If you have any comments, questions, suggested revisions to the current resolution, or an alternative resolution, then reply to this message or speak up at a group meeting. Thanks. -Steve Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Stephen A White'" , Subject: RE: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:56:26 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: AcY0E5EZz5jXORSHSlWleibVXQmEXwAAZVzg Steve, > Based on our discussion at the Tampa F2F, we have a proposed > resolution to this issue. > > The resolution and related information about the Issue can > be found here: > > http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm The issue asks for a combined control and data flow, as is typically found in flow languages. It is a convenience in many applications when an activity cannot start until it receives its input control and data. This is a reasonable request, assuming data flow in general is in scope for the BPMN and the FTF. The diagram shows that a combined data/control flow into a downstream node, as shown in the diagram, will cause that node to start, when it would normally be expected to wait for the other inputs. Presumably a join node of some kind would address this, so the diagram doesn't sufficiently explain why a combined control/data flow is undesirable. Conrad To: Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:18:41 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 02/17/2006 16:18:43, Serialize complete at 02/17/2006 16:18:43 Conrad, You can already bind data and flow in BPMN, as shown in 9.35, by an Association from a Data Object to a Sequence. Thus, the request in the Issue was considered invalid or already handled. The figure to replace 10.11 was part of our discussion on the rationale as to why data and sequence were separated in BPMN. In the figure, the task waiting for both data and sequence would have to wait for the sequence token to arrive before it was ready to start. The data would have been available before then, so there is no problem and a joining mechanism is not needed. Associations cannot, by themselves, trigger the "readiness" of an activity (the same with Message Flow). Only Sequence Flow can do that. -Steve "Conrad Bock" 02/17/2006 02:56 PM Please respond to To Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, cc Subject RE: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 Steve, > Based on our discussion at the Tampa F2F, we have a proposed > resolution to this issue. > > The resolution and related information about the Issue can > be found here: > > http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm The issue asks for a combined control and data flow, as is typically found in flow languages. It is a convenience in many applications when an activity cannot start until it receives its input control and data. This is a reasonable request, assuming data flow in general is in scope for the BPMN and the FTF. The diagram shows that a combined data/control flow into a downstream node, as shown in the diagram, will cause that node to start, when it would normally be expected to wait for the other inputs. Presumably a join node of some kind would address this, so the diagram doesn't sufficiently explain why a combined control/data flow is undesirable. Conrad Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Stephen A White'" Cc: Subject: RE: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:13:33 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcY0GHctp8NszzX7TxqmI+GkrtCQzwEeyRkw Steve, > You can already bind data and flow in BPMN, as shown in > 9.35, by an Association from a Data Object to a Sequence. > Thus, the request in the Issue was considered invalid or > already handled. OK, thanks. The issue response should say that. The current response is about a different issue, then. > The figure to replace 10.11 was part of our discussion on the > rationale as to why data and sequence were separated in BPMN. A separate issue should be filed on this. The current response to 9113 can be moved to that. I other comments about it that I can post in discussion of the new issue. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Stephen A White'" Cc: Subject: RE: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:01:46 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: AcY0GHctp8NszzX7TxqmI+GkrtCQzwJ+b9bA Steve, FYI, I filed this on the OMG issue trackeras a better place to put the current propsoed resolution to 9113 (http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm): Clarify why BPMN separates data and sequence, for example, in Figure 10.11. The proposed resolution to http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm should respond to this issue, rather than 9113, which is about how to bind sequence and data flow. The resolution to 9113 should just say what you did earlier: > You can already bind data and flow in BPMN, as shown in > 9.35, by an Association from a Data Object to a Sequence. > Thus, the request in the Issue was considered invalid or > already handled. To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:50:21 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 05/12/2006 16:50:24, Serialize complete at 05/12/2006 16:50:24 Based on recent email threads and our last concall, I've changed the resolution of 9113. It is now Close, No Change. The text will not be changed. The replacement of the figure can be handled through Issue 9408, which we briefly discussed yesterday. The resolution and related information about the Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm If you have any comments, questions, suggested revisions to the current resolution, or an alternative resolution, then reply to this message. -Steve Stephen A White/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS 02/17/2006 02:43 PM To bpmn-ftf@omg.org cc Subject Suggested Resolution of Issue 9113 Based on our discussion at the Tampa F2F, we have a proposed resolution to this issue. The resolution and related information about the Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209113.htm If you have any comments, questions, suggested revisions to the current resolution, or an alternative resolution, then reply to this message or speak up at a group meeting. Thanks. -Steve