Jun 27, 2019 - Use Case Working Group

Owned by Stephen White (Unlicensed)
Last updated: Jun 27, 2019
2 min read

Date

27 June 2019

See Meeting Recording

Previous Meeting - Next Meeting

Agenda


Item / Topic

Presenter

Description

Continue review of proposed extensions to Item /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420970781Stephen White (Unlicensed)Walk through metamodel proposal
Review some notational /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420937838Stephen White (Unlicensed)Walk through example diagrams

Participants

Goals

List goals for this meeting (e.g., Set design priorities for FY19):

  • Address any Situational Data Requirements from the Field Guide and OMG Meetings

  • Discussion all comments on the Item Definition update proposal

  • Update document as appropriate
  • Identify next steps

Notes (raw)

We discussed how we are using Data Objects in BPMN - by breaking up larger data structures into smaller structures that are appropriate for the context where they are being used.
For example, we might be using the demographics of a patient in a decision. The demographics are part of a larger patient health record structure. It would add to the understandability of the diagram to have a Data Object named "Demographics" when we need it - instead of using the larger "Patient Health Record" Data Object.
However, a separate Demographics Data Object is indeed separate from Patient Health Record. There is no way to specify in BPMN (or CMMN) to specify that one Data Object is actually a sub-element of another Data Object.
These are our options:
  • Ignore the issue and leave to the Consumers of a SCP to deal with the data appropriately.
    • With this we don't need to change the Field Guide or add any requirements to SDMN.
  • Change the Field Guide method to specify that we use only the top-level structures in processes and cases.
    • This would be accurate, but the details of the SCP would be less clear.
  • Change the Field Guide such that we add "conversion tasks" that map the data from the top-level structure objects to the context-specific objects.
    • E.g., map the data from the Patient Health Record Data Object to the Demographics Data Object.
      • The two objects would still be separate objects, but they would contain the same instance data.
    • This would add extra clutter on the diagrams and extra work for the modelers.
  • Update BPMN and CMMN to allow that Data Objects can be defined as being sub-components of other Data Objects. That is, both data objects automatically hold the same instance data (to the extent that they share the data structure).
    • The Field Guide would have to be updated to show how this works.


We didn't come up with any conclusions.

But we will investigate how the data specifications of the BPM+ models may be updated to address this issue.

Chat Log

There were no chat items during the call.


Action items

Add action items to close the loop on open questions or discussion topics:

  • enter action item

Meeting Recording