Feb 21, 2019 - Use Case Working Group
- Stephen White (Unlicensed)
Date
21 Feb 2019
Previous Meeting - Next Meeting
Agenda
Item / Topic | Presenter | Description |
|---|---|---|
Review proposed modeling notation for /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420937838 | Walk through modeling proposal |
Participants
Stephen White (Unlicensed); Denis Gagne; Sharnita Riley; Keith Butler (Keith Butler); Peter Haug
Goals
List goals for this meeting (e.g., Set design priorities for FY19):
Discussion all comments on the Situational Data Modeling Proposal
- Update document as appropriate
- Identify next steps
Notes (raw)
We review the model shown on the /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420937838
One reason to use Item Definition as a basis for graphical modeling of the Situational Data (SD) is that DMN includes Item Definition (ID) in its core.
Thus, if we used another modeling technique, such as UML, to model the fourth pillar, then there would be some translation of the data element to DMN (at least). Such translations add a level of potential errors.
We would recommend that BPMN and CMMN also standardize on ID.
Keith asked about the life-cycle of data elements would be part of the model.
It should be part of the /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420970781 that we are going to propose. But it is not currently in the SD modeling proposal.
But we should consider adding this info here.
The lifecycle states of a SD element should be tied to CMMN Milestones.
Also, BPMN Events and CMMN Milestones should have some linking.
Thus, we are proposing that the SD models are linked with the other SCP models and they should be linked together.
This would be a powerful approach.
Keith mentioned that this would also enable model checking tools to verify the set of models of a SCP
Action items
Add action items to close the loop on open questions or discussion topics:
- add action item