Comments on: Are Floating Intermediate Events Valid?

By: jvoesten

jvoesten — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:35:09 +0000

I found the part of the spec where floaters are forbidden:

p37 states:
If the Start Event is used, then there MUST NOT be other flow elements that do not have incoming Sequence Flow—all other Flow Objects MUST be a target of at least one Sequence Flow.

° An exception to this is the Intermediate Event, which MAY be without an incoming Sequence Flow
(when attached to an activity boundary).

So when there is a start event, intermediate events MUST have incoming flow, except when connected to a boundary of an activity.
When there is no start event, intermediate events can be floaters that start the same time as all other activities or gateways without incoming sequence flow.

By: jvoesten

jvoesten — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:11:32 +0000

Hi Bruce,
I recently started studying the BPMN 1.1 spec and I think this could be explained with the “Event Context” as described in 10.2.2 Exception flow. This is the only place where they mention it but I think it should be used to describe the difference between a start and an intermediate event.

They descibe that in order for an intermediate event to start an exception flow its event context has to be active (running) at the start of the trigger. I think this can be seen as: there is a token somewhere in it’s context (activity). This could also be used when an intermediate event is placed in a sequence flow. A token arrives and only then will the trigger be applicable. A floating intermediate event will never recieve a token, so can never respond to its trigger, because when the trigger arrives, its event context is not active. The difference between start and intermediate event would then be that a start event always has an active event context.

This of course is not written in the spec, but my view of how this should be seen. What do you think?

By: BPMN usage and tips « MyNotePad

BPMN usage and tips « MyNotePad — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:24:55 +0000

[...] usage and tips 30 October 2008 — Panos Are Floating Intermediate Events Valid? The issue is an intermediate event (e.g., message or timer) “floating” in a process or [...]

By: When Are Error End Events Legal? - BPMS Watch

When Are Error End Events Legal? - BPMS Watch — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:54:14 +0000

[...] had good luck with my previous BPMN “request for information” posting, so here is another one. Is it valid to end a [...]

By: bruce

bruce — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:19:56 +0000

Note added per “the man,” Steve White himself. Floaters are technically allowed (for some reason), but the meaning is the same as a sequence flow from the start event to the floating intermediate event. In other words, it is not an optional occurrence; the process will wait for this event and it can only be triggered once. So it’s fair to say that the way floaters are used in the wild – i.e., optional occurrence, can be instantiated multiple times – is invalid.

By: bruce

bruce — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:35:09 +0000

Wow, two votes off the bat for “invalid” on the floaters. Thanks David and Derek. David, I have always interpreted the para you quote as reference to what used to be called “start activities”, i.e. activities with no sequence flows in. BPMN 1.1 extended that to all flow objects, but I try not to use that option. Derek, I’m not sure I agree that a process can have multiple start events that signify parallel threads instantiated at different points in time, e.g. by different events, if that’s what you mean. That is essentially the floater semantic with a different notation. Again, this is what BPMN 2.0 is calling inline event subprocesses; a special notation would not be needed if a second start event did the same thing. Maybe you are saying it was there all along but BPMN 2.0 is trying to make it clearer? In any case the language I quote in my post about intermediate events MAY have incoming sequence flow (not MUST) is repeated verbatim in the IBM-SAP-Oracle submission, so that part at least is no clearer.

By: Derek Miers

Derek Miers — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:41:52 +0000

Bruce – My understanding is that (at the moment in BPMN 1.1), all Intermediate Events are either a) attached to an Activity as an Interrupt Mechanism, or b) placed in between Sequence Flow (with only one incoming and one outgoing Sequence Flow).

Appian, while providing a fiarly accurate representation of BPMN, is bending the rules to suit some of the funcitonality native to their engine. I dont know the Active EndPoints use of the Intermediate Event.

Either way, Intermediate Event cannot be floating. Otherwise it is a Start Event – that is what the SE is for, starting a Thread of Activity. There is no reason why a Process cannot have multiple Start Events. The Flow Objects need not all be connected to one all seeing, all dancing process flow.

I will check with Steve next week at Think Tank (I am Pretty sure he will be there).

While the language of BPMN 2.0 may clear up the spec a little, I would not expect it to suddenly break the rules of the spec to support a couple of vendors who have mis-interpretted the original.

From the “BPMN Modeling & Reference Guide” (by myself and Stephen White, the main author of the spec

“Intermediate Events are placed within the Process flow to repre-sent things that happen during the normal operations of the Proc-ess and usually occur in between Activities. They may also inter-rupt the normal processing of an Activity. …Intermediate Events are either placed within the normal flow of a Process (i.e. between Activities), or they are attached to the boun-dary of an Activity to trigger an interruption of that Activity.”

The book is available from Future Strategies (www.futstrat.com)

By: frenchdk

frenchdk — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:52:01 +0000

Both specs also contain a para which I read as conflicting with the one that quote

From Business Process Modeling Notation, v1.1 P37

° If the Start Event is used, then there MUST NOT be other flow elements that do not have incoming Sequence Flow—all other Flow Objects MUST be a target of at least one Sequence Flow.
° Exceptions to this are activities that are defined as being Compensation activities (have the Compensation Marker). Compensation activities MUST NOT have any incoming Sequence Flow, even if there is a Start Event in the Process level. See Section 10.3, “Compensation Association,” on page 129 for more information on Compensation activities.
° An exception to this is the Intermediate Event, which MAY be without an incoming Sequence Flow (when attached to an activity boundary).

This I read as requiring incoming sequence flow except when attached to boundary.

I suggest that a clean up is required in BPMN 2.0 spec at least.

I can’t think of any practical difference that you could infer from a floater distinct from an intermediate event with an inbound sequence flow. However, it may convey a difference to business people … in the case of a floater, the intermediate event could not be seen as being ‘prepared’ by the predecessor in the sequence flow.

I note that Intalio does not allow floating intermediate events … they are treated as start events and only one start event is allowed in a process.