Issue 9318: Attributes not explained with respect to Notation (bpmn-ftf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Most elements have a section called 'attributes' - but nowhere is it explained how these are related to the Notation being specified. Is it expected that each shape will have a 'property sheet' allowing these attributes to be viewed and edited? The end of Section 7.1.1 states "Thus, the graphic elements of BPMN will be supported by attributes that will supply the additional information required". In many cases though the attributes described include information that is redundant with the diagrammatic representation e.g. Name (in several places including 9.6.1) and ParentPool and ParentLane for Lane in section 9.6.3. In general Appendix B has more of the flavor of a metamodel or an interchange definition than a Notation. Resolution: Suggested Resolution: Close, No Change: A requirement of the BPMN 2.0 RFP is to include both notation and a metamodel in the specification. Thus, the issue will be resolved with the specification that results from the RFP. Revised Text: None Revised Text: Actions taken: January 30, 2006: received issue July 18, 2008: closed issue Discussion: Defer: The OMG roadmap for BPMN and BPDM indicates that the two specifications will be consolidated for a BPMN/BPDM 2.0. When this occurs all issues regarding notation vs. metamodel will no longer be problematic. Since this issue involves a discussion of the notational aspects vs. an underlying metamodel for BPMN, we can defer this issue to version 2.0. End of Annotations:===== ubject: Issues on BPMN Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:17:59 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issues on BPMN Thread-Index: AcYlXIlAAqRKeKvQTICFTOCuE//pqQ== From: "Pete Rivett" To: Cc: These are ones I raised as part of my AB review, updated for the DAS numbering. Issue A) Attributes not explained with respect to Notation To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9318 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:16:13 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.1HF346 | August 4, 2006) at 10/21/2006 23:16:15, Serialize complete at 10/21/2006 23:16:15 This is intended for Ballot 4 http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209318.htm Note: There wasn't time to finish the resolution for this issue. Thus, we will have to defer it for now and finish it during the next FTF Issue 9318: Attributes not explained with respect to Notation Description: Most elements have a section called 'attributes' - but nowhere is it explained how these are related to the Notation being specified. Is it expected that each shape will have a 'property sheet' allowing these attributes to be viewed and edited? The end of Section 7.1.1 states "Thus, the graphic elements of BPMN will be supported by attributes that will supply the additional information required". In many cases though the attributes described include information that is redundant with the diagrammatic representation e.g. Name (in several places including 9.6.1) and ParentPool and ParentLane for Lane in section 9.6.3. In general Appendix B has more of the flavor of a metamodel or an interchange definition than a Notation. Suggested Resolution: Defer: This issue will be resolved during the next BPMN FTF. Revised Text: None To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9318 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:42:48 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 02/08/2007 12:42:50, Serialize complete at 02/08/2007 12:42:50 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org This is intended for Ballot 7 http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209318.htm Yes, we voted on this issue to defer it to the second FTF. We had planned to make some changes, but now that we have a clearer roadmap of BPMN/BPDM 2.0, it would be better to defer this issue till then. Issue 9318: Attributes not explained with respect to Notation Description: Most elements have a section called 'attributes' - but nowhere is it explained how these are related to the Notation being specified. Is it expected that each shape will have a 'property sheet' allowing these attributes to be viewed and edited? The end of Section 7.1.1 states "Thus, the graphic elements of BPMN will be supported by attributes that will supply the additional information required". In many cases though the attributes described include information that is redundant with the diagrammatic representation e.g. Name (in several places including 9.6.1) and ParentPool and ParentLane for Lane in section 9.6.3. In general Appendix B has more of the flavor of a metamodel or an interchange definition than a Notation. Suggested Resolution: Defer: The OMG roadmap for BPMN and BPDM indicates that the two specifications will be consolidated for a BPMN/BPDM 2.0. When this occurs all issues regarding notation vs. metamodel will no longer be problematic. Since this issue involves a discussion of the notational aspects vs. an underlying metamodel for BPMN, we can defer this issue to version 2.0. Revised Text: None Most elements have a section called 'attributes' - but nowhere is it explained how these are related to the Notation being specified. Is it expected that each shape will have a 'property sheet' allowing these attributes to be viewed and edited? The end of Section 7.1.1 states "Thus, the graphic elements of BPMN will be supported by attributes that will supply the additional information required". In many cases though the attributes described include information that is redundant with the diagrammatic representation e.g. Name (in several places including 9.6.1) and ParentPool and ParentLane for Lane in section 9.6.3. In general Appendix B has more of the flavor of a metamodel or an interchange definition than a Notation.