Issue 9342: Semantical difference between activity models and BPMN                                                                                                                                                  (bpmn-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary:  I do not see what exactly is the semantical difference between activity
  models and BPMN, besides its syntactic constituents. Secondly, BPMN does
  not address the objects or nouns which activitiy diagrams do. Process
  with objects provide complete meaning, process without objects is
  typeless and thus meaningless.
Resolution: The [previous] FTF disagreed with the statement that a process without objects is meaningless.
The modeling audience that desire/require object-orientation is not the same audience that is the
target of BPMN. Perhaps Activity Diagrams fit the former audience better, and Activity Diagrams
are always an option. However, the FTF recognizes that although the audiences may differ greatly,
the modeling scope of Activity Diagrams and BPMN greatly overlap. At some point, the OMG will
have to deal with this.
This is not an issue that can addressed by the BPMN RTF in terms of the BPMN specification version
1.2.
Suggested Resolution:
Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF, but should be addressed by the OMG
community as a whole.
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
January 31, 2006: received issue
July 18, 2008: closed issue
Discussion: 
Discussion:
The FTF agrees that there is a problem that needs fixing or addressing (Activity
Diagrams and BPMN), but could not agree on a resolution and deferred its
resolution to future work on BPMN.
Disposition: Deferred
End of Annotations:=====
eply-To: <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
From: "Conrad Bock" <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
To: "'Juergen Boldt'" <juergen@omg.org>, "Steve White" <wstephe@us.ibm.com>
Subject: BPMN RFC issues -> FTF
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:45:54 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcYl288kdFf4OQ7SSGatNyNG8SXnBwAukUJQ


 
Hi Juergen, Steve,


Will the BPMN RFC comments be filed as FTF issues?  I'm interested
in the two below in particular.  It seems like all the RFC comments
should be transferred to the FTF.


Conrad



  From: webmaster@omg.org
  Date: 17 Dec 2005 16:35:53 -0500
  To: <rfc-form@omg.org>
  Subject: RFC Comments


  Comments_On: BPMN
  Name:        Aman
  Email:       aman.naimat@oracle.com
  Company:     Oracle Corporation
  B1:          Submit


  Comments:


  I do not see what exactly is the semantical difference between activity
  models and BPMN, besides its syntactic constituents. Secondly, BPMN does
  not address the objects or nouns which activitiy diagrams do. Process
  with objects provide complete meaning, process without objects is
  typeless and thus meaningless.
  -Aman


To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org
Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9342
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005
From: Stephen A White <wstephe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:00:20 -0700
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at
 05/11/2006 19:00:21,
        Serialize complete at 05/11/2006 19:00:21



The resolution and related information about this Issue can be found here: 

http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209342.htm 

If you have any comments, questions, suggested revisions about the current resolution, or an alternative resolution, then reply to this message or speak up at a group meeting. 

Thanks.