Issue 9343: complicated notation (bpmn-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Sometimes It is too complicated notation. Can I use standard defacto notation like UML, DSL or others ? We have limited time to learn the new one to adapt new notation and give training to other parties. Maybe you should give more choice for the notation like you can use class diagram (in UML of course) with stereotypes with limited features, or you can use pure BPMN notation with full feature; or maybe you can use some translation or search some equal diagram from BPMN to other diagram to make the beginners understand. I suggest you create a templates to plug into MS Visio, Rational Rose Petal or other CASE tool to make users adapt the notation quickly. Perhaps you can build the beta version until the release Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 31, 2006: received issue April 19, 2007: closed issue Discussion: Discussion: The FTF decided that the issue report does not, in fact, identify a problem with this (or any other) OMG specification. A mapping from BPMN to UML2 will be included in the response to the BPDM RFP and this may alleviate some of the concerns raised in this issue. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9343 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:40:30 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 05/10/2006 18:40:34, Serialize complete at 05/10/2006 18:40:34 The resolution and related information about this Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209343.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. eply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Juergen Boldt'" , "Steve White" 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 Comments_On: BPMN Name: Nicko Satria Utama Email: nickotech2000@yahoo.co.uk Company: - B1: Submit Comments: Sometimes It is too complicated notation. Can I use standard defacto notation like UML, DSL or others ? We have limited time to learn the new one to adapt new notation and give training to other parties. Maybe you should give more choice for the notation like you can use class diagram (in UML of course) with stereotypes with limited features, or you can use pure BPMN notation with full feature; or maybe you can use some translation or search some equal diagram from BPMN to other diagram to make the beginners understand. I suggest you create a templates to plug into MS Visio, Rational Rose Petal or other CASE tool to make users adapt the notation quickly. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9343 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:34:48 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 thread-index: AcZ0kuyWtEDiTN4fQ9a1aJtzSl3xxgAfUl7w X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Steve, et al, > The resolution and related information about this Issue can > be found here: > > http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209343.htm This one is basically asking for a BPMN/UML mapping. It is a legitimate request. Perhaps it can be deferred. To: Cc: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9343 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:50:35 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 05/11/2006 21:50:36, Serialize complete at 05/11/2006 21:50:36 Conrad, We didn't get that from the issue description, but if that is the case, there will be a BPMN to UML2 mapping as part of the BPDM RFP response. There is a draft of this mapping. After I go over it I will pass it on to the BPDMers for review (fairly soon). Thus, we can still close this issue and know that the mapping part of the issue will be taken care of. I will update the Issue Discussion Notes to mention the mapping. -Steve "Conrad Bock" 05/11/2006 08:34 AM Please respond to To cc Subject RE: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9343 Steve, et al, > The resolution and related information about this Issue can > be found here: > > http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209343.htm This one is basically asking for a BPMN/UML mapping. It is a legitimate request. Perhaps it can be deferred. Conrad Perhaps you can build the beta version until the release