Issue 9357: Need consistent terminology for Categories, Core Elements (bpmn-ftf) Source: Capability Measurement (Mr. Karl Frank, Karl.Frank@ngc.com karl.frank@ngc.com karl.karolus@gmail.com karl.frank@capabilitymeasurement.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Issue summary: Need consistent terminology for Categories, Core Elements aka Graphical Objects Details: Note: This issue is related to the one above ???3 under the summary: Which is it, Core Elements, or Flow Objects?. The text presentation on page 15 of 06-01-01 (section 8.1) introduces four "basic categories" of Core Modeling Elements. compare that with Section 9.1, the text preceding Table 9.1, which reads in part >>>> "BPMN graphical objects (Flow Objects, Swimlanes, Artifacts and Connecting Objects)" These same four were earlier said to be the basic Categories aka the Core Modeling Elements. Now they are said to be the four "graphical objects". It seems likely that authors of different parts of the text were agreed that this list of four was speciallly important, but that they did not use the same terminology for them. They should consistently be termed "categories", "core elements" or "the BPMN Graphical Objects", but not a mix of all 3 terminologies. Since these four categories turn up in so many contexts, they invite close study, and their seemng importance -- at least in the view of the authors of the spec -- suggests that the metamodel of the BPMN domain should recognize them as important metaclasses. If this implication is not intended, then the text should get rid of these "categories". Resolution: Suggested Resolution: Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to the BPMN 2.0 RFP. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed, deferred Revised Text: Actions taken: February 3, 2006: received issue July 18, 2008: closed issue Discussion: Discussion: While the Issue may be valid, it represents potentially significant modifications. Thus, this Issue will be deferred and handled by work on a later version of BPMN. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== ssue #?????5 Issue summary: Need consistent terminology for Categories, Core Elements aka Graphical Objects Details: Note: This issue is related to the one above ???3 under the summary: Which is it, Core Elements, or Flow Objects?. The text presentation on page 15 of 06-01-01 (section 8.1) introduces four "basic categories" of Core Modeling Elements. compare that with Section 9.1, the text preceding Table 9.1, which reads in part >>>> "BPMN graphical objects (Flow Objects, Swimlanes, Artifacts and Connecting Objects)" These same four were earlier said to be the basic Categories aka the Core Modeling Elements. Now they are said to be the four "graphical objects". It seems likely that authors of different parts of the text were agreed that this list of four was speciallly important, but that they did not use the same terminology for them. They should consistently be termed "categories", "core elements" or "the BPMN Graphical Objects", but not a mix of all 3 terminologies. Since these four categories turn up in so many contexts, they invite close study, and their seemng importance -- at least in the view of the authors of the spec -- suggests that the metamodel of the BPMN domain should recognize them as important metaclasses. If this implication is not intended, then the text should get rid of these "categories". - best regards, Karl Frank Principal Architect, Borland Software Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:21:15 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: BPMN Issue 9357: "graphical object" vs. "model element" As I understand it, in today's telecon, we generalized Issue 9357 to using a common designation for "model elements" and using that term in 8.1 and 8.2 and wherever else it is needed. (8.2 is the complete set of "model elements".) Then 9.1 is about the attributes common to all "model elements". We also agreed (per Monica) to add "model element" to the glossary in Annex C (vice clause 4). Steve suggested that we should reorganize clauses 9 and 10, so that 9 is about all of the model elements, which includes the current 10.1, and 10 is about more complex flow structures -- the current 10.2 and 10.3. I have no problem with this, and it is a relatively smaller change. Note that if we move 10.1 into clause 9, it is not necessary to move clause 9.1, because clause 9 is now about *all* model elements, and clause 9.1 applies to *all* model elements. So I think this is a good idea. What remains is the question that Steve asked at the end of the telecon: Is "graphical object" different from "model element", and if so, what is the difference in the definition? I don't know the answer, so I thought we should put this on the exploder... To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9357 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Stephen A White Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:16:17 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.1HF346 | August 4, 2006) at 10/06/2006 17:16:18, Serialize complete at 10/06/2006 17:16:18 This is intended for Ballot 4 Issue 9357: Need consistent terminology for Categories, Core Elements Description: The text presentation on page 15 of 06-01-01 (section 8.1) introduces four "basic categories" of Core Modeling Elements. compare that with Section 9.1, the text preceding Table 9.1, which reads in part >>>> "BPMN graphical objects (Flow Objects, Swimlanes, Artifacts and Connecting Objects)" These same four were earlier said to be the basic Categories aka the Core Modeling Elements. Now they are said to be the four "graphical objects". It seems likely that authors of different parts of the text were agreed that this list of four was speciallly important, but that they did not use the same terminology for them. They should consistently be termed "categories", "core elements" or "the BPMN Graphical Objects", but not a mix of all 3 terminologies. Since these four categories turn up in so many contexts, they invite close study, and their seemng importance -- at least in the view of the authors of the spec -- suggests that the metamodel of the BPMN domain should recognize them as important metaclasses. If this implication is not intended, then the text should get rid of these "categories". Suggested Resolution: Defer: While the Issue may be valid, it represents potentially significant modifications. Thus, this Issue will be deferred and handled by work on a later version of BPMN. Revised Text: None