Questions re: BPMN 2.0 Diagram Interpretation

[SilverSage]

I don't see a forum topic area devoted to BPMN specifically, so I am posting my BPMN questions here.  Please inform me if there's a more appropriate thread / sub-forum for me to post questions about BPMN.  BTW, I know this is an EA forum, and I do have specific questions pertaining to EA that I've posted in the proper threads.

Now for my question:  If a map exists with N number of DataObjects with the same name - e.g. Bob - with each one connected to a different activity via a data association (the intent being to show how one or more physical documents move through a business process), is the correct way to interpret that map that each DataObject named Bob is a separate, unrelated entity and that there are N number of separate "Bobs", each with data associated only to the activity to which an association is indicated?

My thinking is that the "correct" way to illustrate movement of an object/data through a process diagrammed using BPMN 2.0 would be to place the object on a diagram one time and then create the appropriate data input and data output associations between that one DataObject and each activity that requires it.

I know BPMN is not intended to document how DataObjects and information move through a business process, but that's what management wants to see and I'm trying to determine the "correct" or "best" way to illustrate that in my maps.

Thanks for any assistance.

[qwerty]

I can't speak for BPMN specifically but generally in UML you would have multiple instances of the same class (i.e. those instances are classified with the same class) in order to show some concrete example. And management often wants to see those concrete examples (means you have a lot of work creating them).

q.

[SilverSage]

Thanks, q... I think. ;-)

[Paolo F Cantoni]

[size=14][SNIP][/size]

Now for my question:  If a map exists with N number of DataObjects with the same name - e.g. Bob - with each one connected to a different activity via a data association (the intent being to show how one or more physical documents move through a business process), is the correct way to interpret that map that each DataObject named Bob is a separate, unrelated entity and that there are N number of separate "Bobs", each with data associated only to the activity to which an association is indicated?

My thinking is that the "correct" way to illustrate movement of an object/data through a process diagrammed using BPMN 2.0 would be to place the object on a diagram one time and then create the appropriate data input and data output associations between that one DataObject and each activity that requires it.

I know BPMN is not intended to document how DataObjects and information move through a business process, but that's what management wants to see and I'm trying to determine the "correct" or "best" way to illustrate that in my maps.

Thanks for any assistance.

Yes SilverSage, if I understand you correctly, that is the correct approach.
Formally, in the model (not a specific diagram) there is only one element named Bob.  Each diagram shows how Bob is related to the various activities (using - as you say - the appropriate access relationships).

Again, formally, you are aware that a Data Object in BPMN (and ArchiMate for that matter) is NOT an instance, but a classifier.  It is unfortunate that there is a discrepancy in naming between UML and the other methodologies.

Also who said BPMN wasn't for illustrating how business objects move within business processes?  I shall challenge them to a duel at dawn!    - Their choice of metamodels as weapons!  

HTH,
Paolo

[SilverSage]

[size=14][SNIP][/size]

Also who said BPMN wasn't for illustrating how business objects move within business processes?  I shall challenge them to a duel at dawn!    - Their choice of metamodels as weapons!  

HTH,
Paolo

[smiley=dankk2.gif] SO MUCH, Paolo.

If memory serves - and it may not... or it may - Bruce Silver, author of BPMN Method & Style (Editions 1 and 2) wrote it.  Of course, I could have miscontrued what he wrote and what he meant or it might not have been him at all...  I guess I pretty much just disavowed all knowledge of the subject.  But that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

BTW, your response did help.  It won't make any difference to the people who are creating the nonsence and defending their approach with equal nonsense, but I can be content knowing I was right.

Michael

[Paolo F Cantoni]

[size=14][SNIP][/size]

BTW, your response did help.  It won't make any difference to the people who are creating the nonsence and defending their approach with equal nonsense, but I can be content knowing I was right.

Michael

Technically, Michael, it not nonsense it's NON-sense...  

Have a good weekend!

BTW, never be put off by what the experts say, think it through for yourself - as you've done.  I have quite frustrating time disavowing people of the most weird opinions on modelling (since they're not backed up by facts or logical argument from a valid premise).

Paolo

[SilverSage]

Thank you for your response, Paolo.  I had a fantastic weekend.  Since it was the United States' Independence Day this past weekend, I had a much-needed extra day off.

Although I feel your frustration, I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling frustrated with the non-sense ( :-/) so many people spew.  

I hope you enjoyed your weekend, too.

Michael

P.S.
I don't know who first said this, but I love this definition of an expert: Someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know nothing at all.

[qwerty]

I guess it's "... know almost nothing about everything" since with a limit calculation you still get some non-zero result while "nothing at all" returns zero.
(Courtesy of your smart-ass on duty)

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I guess it's "... know almost nothing about everything" since with a limit calculation you still get some non-zero result while "nothing at all" returns zero.
(Courtesy of your smart-ass on duty)

q.

I thought an expert was a "Drip under pressure!"

BTW: love: "Smart-arse (the English spelling) on duty"

Paolo

[SilverSage]

I guess it's "... know almost nothing about everything" since with a limit calculation you still get some non-zero result while "nothing at all" returns zero.
(Courtesy of your smart-ass on duty)

q.

But is expertise an asymptotic function? Perhaps it's an assymptotic function. ;-)

[Paolo F Cantoni]

[size=14]SNIP[/size]

But is expertise an asymptotic function? Perhaps it's an assymptotic function. ;-)

Soooo Good!!!!    +1

Paolo