Jump to content

Talk:Business Process Model and Notation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Figures in this article

[edit]

I've noticed a mistake within the figures in this article. As far as I know there is no text allowed inside the rhombus symbol. E. g. the first figure shows a rhombus with the text "Working group still active?" inside.
Sure there should be a BMPN-gateway at this point of the process. Though a gateway is visualized by a rhombus there shouldn't be any text inside.
All these figures look more like flowcharts than BPMN to me.
??

Figure on top of the article

[edit]

While I agree that the text should be outside of the gateway figure, I find it more problematic that the figure right on top of the article is riddled with mistakes. The Document-Figure is missing the dog-ear, the association arrow has the wrong arrow-head, the second event looks like a start event (single thin border), which is not allowed here and should be changed to an intermediate event, and the end event has a different size than the other two events, which may be not explicitly wrong, but at least irritating. Further, it is not clear why the first start event has the type message (reads more like a rule event). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.154.39 (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have uploaded a new image that addresses some of these. Adds send symbol to the send task, dogear notation on the document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanks (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to other things

[edit]

For example, how does BPMN relate to BPML, BPEL and YAWL. --Raboof 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

[edit]

I think there should be a section on tools used to create and manage BPMN models.
Starting with, what tools were used to create the diagrams on the page?

You can find list of BPMN tools at: http://www.bpmn.org/BPMN_Supporters.htm
The tool used to create these diagrams are Business Process Visual ARCHITECT

--AngusChan 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cómo puedo agregar una herramienta llamada idungu.com que permite diagramar desde internet, a la lista de BPMN Tools.?

I've added list of tools Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools

Originally there were all 63 tools, as suggested by bpmn.org, unfortunatelly, others thought that it would be better if the tools of companies, which don't have an article on wiki, should be deleted, so there are only 25 tools. You can check the history how it originally looked.

Student-sl (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bpd

[edit]

"bpd" is used, but not explained. if it is "business process diagram", then "bpd diagram" is one "diagram" too much.

Actor/Performer missing

[edit]

A task has an actor/performer otherwise it is not a task. This whole article has a mediocre quality.

Test

Back colour is allowed in pools, which is having 1 or 2 lanes

[edit]

Pool Backcolour I just wanted to confirm whether the we can give back colour to pool, whether this is in confirmance to BPMN standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.75.147 (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

As there is no discussion for this article about the Notability tag, I'm removing it. Drop a note in here if you want to re-tag the article for notability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.227.146 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakness: converting BPMN to executable environments???

[edit]

Is this really the case? I know of at least one product (BizAgi) that is executing BPMN models. --Vbakke (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tramline border"???

[edit]

The article repeatedly mentions the use of a "tramline border", which must be some kind of graphical mark, but I've never heard of it, in spite of being a well educated (PhD) native English speaker. Perhaps someone could add a link to a definition? Dictionaries that I checked were no help. Thanks. -- DBooth (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to "double border" on November 14, 2011, as is used on the bpmn.org site. --Bposert (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BPMN versions

[edit]

I've added a "Comparison of BPMN versions" section. Business_Process_Modeling_Notation#Comparison_of_BPMN_versions
Please, check the data and correct if you think there are any mistakes. I'd be really great if we had an overview of all the changes.

Student-sl (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business Process Model and Notation

[edit]

After the OMG, from Version 2.0 BPMN stands for Business Process Model and Notation not Business Process Modeling Notation 134.96.3.93 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures in this article (2)

[edit]

The figure BPMN-E-MailVotingProcess.jpg has several mistakes: The gateway "Did Enough Members Vote?" knows two default sequences to follow. There should be only one. The Yes/No options after "2nd time?" are inverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved last added section and auto-added signature to end of talk page. -- SchreyP (messages) 18:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are still many mistakes in the figures. First of all, the image 120px-BPMN_event_types.svg.png is totally wrong. Events can(!) differ by color, but they must(!) differ by their borders, because BPMNs must be readable in black and white, too. Start events have a single thin border, stop events a single thick border, and intermediate events a thin double border, as it is already mentioned in the text.

The models still show text within some gateways (as it was mentioned earlier), which is not correct. The rhomb with text inside is a classic flow chart element, not a BPMN element. The latter should be small, without text, and of equal height and width.

In the models, afaik there must be gateways, when several connections start at or lead to one single event or activity. You should not point directly at the events or activities when there is more than one connection. Instead, you should use gateways to join all connections. After that, one single connection can lead from the gateway to the desired event/activity.

Alltogether, the examples given in the examples section and the beginning of the article are a bit like BPMNs, but they are no correct BPMNs. --Quadratur (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I need to correct one of my statements. It is possible that more than one solid connection come from (or lead to) one single event. --Quadratur (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BPMN versions

[edit]

The current section about the Comparison of BPMN versions holds valuable information about the development of BPMN. This section is added 1.5 years ago by User:Student-sl, see here, and this table seems to be his mayor contribution to Wikipedia so far (see here). I think there are several problems with this table. It is hard to read, it's an inefficient use of article-space, but most important: It is hard to understand without the proper context. I would like to propose to replace this table by ordinary prose. -- Mdd (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Business Process Model and Notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business Process Model and Notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can Anyone Explain "Close Connection" Banner?

[edit]

Can someone please explain the banner that complains that the sources are "too close to the subject"? It only really makes sense if you're saying the the references to the actual standard as published by OMG is a Primary Source and you are seeking secondary (interpretive) sources. If that's the problem, can you please change the banner? Is that's not the problem, can you please explain whom you see as the source that is too close to the subject? I would think that anyone (e.g. Bruce Silver) qualified to speak to the subject was probably involved in either the development or implementation of this standard. Most of the articles on ISO standards rely heavily (or entirely) on the spec itself. That would seem the closest analogy: OMG wrote BPMN 2.0 just as ISO wrote ISO 3166.

For future reference, it would be much better form to explain on the Talk Page any banner you put on an article or even a section. Otherwise, other editors have no idea what you want to see improved. Last1in (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Business_Process_Model_and_Notation&oldid=1206491006"