Comments on: Concepts and Terminology in BPMN 2.0

By: BPMN 2.0 is almost here…. « LSC | BPM C.A.T.A.L.Y.S.T

BPMN 2.0 is almost here…. « LSC | BPM C.A.T.A.L.Y.S.T — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:21:58 +0000

[...] Click here [...]

By: sca

sca — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:35:33 +0000

I am very relieved to find a more familiar description of BPMN2.0.
I suspect it is this document that Bruce has commented upon. Initially, I was afraid that there only was the BPMN-S document after harmonization between the two proposals.

Steinar Carlsen

By: Event Handling in BPMN 2.0 - BPMS Watch

Event Handling in BPMN 2.0 - BPMS Watch — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:35:01 +0000

[...] is a continuation of my review of the IBM et al BPMN 2.0 submission to [...]

By: allweyer

allweyer — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:29:59 +0000

There are two proposals on OMG’s homepage. The IBM / Oracle … submission is available at:
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/2008-09-04

I agree that the other, BPMN-S, submission is something you need to hide away from Business Analysts – otherwise they will decide that BPMN is something very technical, not usable on a business level.

By: Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : Bookmarks for September 15th

Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : Bookmarks for September 15th — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:00:51 +0000

[...] Concepts and Terminology in BPMN 2.0 – BPMS Watch – Bruce's comments on the coming BPMN 2.0 spec: what's missing, what's still confusing. Posted by Sandy Kemsley on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 3:00 pm. Filed under Links. Follow any responses to this post with its comments RSS feed. You can post a comment or trackback from your blog. [...]

By: sca

sca — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:42:08 +0000

I was a little bit confused about this; the form of the new BPMN specification is a huge bunch of UMLdiagrams. If this is the result of the merger of the two initial propositions, it seems to me that IBM / Oracle / BEA / SAP left the party? The specification now essentially is for programmers; I miss a document that would be slightly useful for at least some business analysts. It also seems that many of the examples from the 1.0 and 1.1 specifications are missing. The document I downloaded was http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/2008-09-07 – 424 pages long.

I would prefer it the other way around – start with the IBM/Oracle/SAP proposition; then add stuff from the other one.

By: BPMN 2 Public Draft Available | ARIS BPM Blog

BPMN 2 Public Draft Available | ARIS BPM Blog — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:09:27 +0000

[...] Bruce already has a first review on the submission. Of course, there are still many problems and unclear definitions. Like Bruce, I was also wondering about the very blurry definition of business process diagram. But I’m pretty sure that those problems will be removed in the final specification. However, I like to encourage everybody to provide such detailed comments as Bruce did. That is why a public draft is released so that everybody can comment on it! [...]