iso/iec jtc 1/sc 32 n 2259jtc1sc32.org/doc/n2251-2300/32n2259-disp_of... · iso/iec jtc 1/sc 32 n...

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N 2259 Date: 2012-07-12

REPLACES:______

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32

Data Management and Interchange

Secretariat: United States of America (ANSI)

Administered by Farance Inc. on behalf of ANSI

DOCUMENT TYPE Disposition of Comments TITLE Disposition of comments on N2135 CD3 19763-5 Information technology -

Metamodel framework for interoperability (MFI) Part 5: Metamodel for process model registration

SOURCE WG2 - HE Keqing - project editor PROJECT NUMBER 1.32.22.01.05.00 STATUS Disposition of comments in 32N2162 (comments on CD3 19763-5 ballot

32N2158). This accompanies 32N2258 CD4 19763-5 sent to NBs for 3 month letter ballot.

REFERENCES ACTION ID. FYI REQUESTED ACTION

DUE DATE Number of Pages 25 LANGUAGE USED English DISTRIBUTION P & L Members

SC Chair WG Conveners and Secretaries

Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail: [email protected] available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/ *Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI

Canadian Comments on SC32 N2135 CD3 19763-5 Date: 2012-07-10 Document:

1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1

Clause No./ Subclause

No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/Table

/Note (e.g. Table 1)

Type of

com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations on each comment submitted

1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial

NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory.

page 1 of 24 ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10

CA00 0 Ballot - Te Canada has voted ‘Disapprove with Comments’ on this ballot, for the reasons stated below. Canada supports the project but believes parts 7, 8 and 9 should be allowed to completed 2

nd CD before this part goes to DIS, in order to

ensure that the parts can be kept consistent.

Defer the DIS ballot until parts 7, 8 and 9 are ready to go to DIS as well.

CA01 0 Foreword List of parts Ed Part 4 has been cancelled and split between parts 10 and 11.

Remove Part 4 from the list of parts. Agree.

Part 4 is removed from the list of parts in CD4.

CA02 3 Terms … All Ed Defined terms are not high-lighted in the definitions where they are used.

Where defined terms are used in other definitions, they should be shown in bold font.

Agree.

The terms section in CD4 is revised according to the proposed change of CA02.

CA03 3 Terms … All Ed The terms are not ordered alphabetically, nor are they ordered so that terms are defined before they are used in other definitions. E.g. 3.1.1 process uses the term 'activity' defined in 3.1.2.

Either order the terms alphabetically, or order them so that terms are defined before they are used in other definitions.

Agree.

The terms in CD4 is revised to order the terms so that they are defined before they are used in other definitions.

CA04 3.1.9 Definition Te The definition for the term 'precondition' is taken from 19763-7, where it defined in the context of a service, but in this part it is used in the context of a process. Also, in part 7, the context for precondition is actually a service operation, not a service.

Generalize the definition to support both contexts:

'state that shall exist before a process or service operation is invoked'

Partially agree.

We agree that the definitions of ’precondition’ and ‘postcondition’ should be generalized to support both processes and services.

But we think it is better to just address ‘process’ in CD4. So we revise the definition of ‘precondition’ and ‘postcondition’ from MFI-7. See 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 in CD4.

CA05 3.1.10 Definition Te The definition for the term 'postcondition' is taken from 19763-7, where it defined in the context of a service, but in this part it is used in the context of a process. Also, in part 7, the context for postcondition is actually a service operation, not a service.

Generalize the definition to support both contexts:

'state that shall exist after a process or service operation is invoked successfully'

CA06 3.1.14 Definition Ed 'circularly' is not the best term to use in this definition. Replace 'circularly' by 'repeatedly' Agree.

Revised in CD4.


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






CA07 3.2 All Ed The abbreviated terms are not ordered alphabetically Order the entries alphabetically. Agree.

The abbreviated terms are ordered alphabetically in CD4.

CA08 4 All Te The conformance statements use the term 'be applied to', but it is not clear exactly what this means.

Reword the statements to explain exactly what it means to conform to the metamodel. See FCD 11179-3 Clause 4 and CD 19763-7 for examples.

Agree.

Conformance section in CD4 is revised according to 19763-7.

CA09 5 Title Ed The title of clause 5, and several sub-clauses and figures use the abbreviation MFI PMR. It is better not to use abbreviations in clause titles, and terms should be spelled out in full on first use in any major clause.

Spell out MFI PMR in full (at least the PMR part) in clause titles and on first use. Include the abbreviation after the first use.

Agree.

CD4 spells out MFI PMR in full in clause titles and on first use.

CA10 5 All Te This and other parts of 19763 use references between classes, instead associations as used in 11179-3. As a result, the pairing of the references is less clear. WG2 has previously expressed a desire to align the modelling techniques of 19763 and 11179. Canada has a strong preference for associations over references.

Convert the model to use associations instead of references.

Note: In case this comment is not accepted, and the model continues to use references, there are specific problems with the specification of the references that need to be addressed, which are identified in comments below.

According the latest guideline (WG2N1671), CD4 uses references between classes in the metamodel.

CA11 5.1 Figure 2 Te Figure 2 only shows references in one direction, while the textual description (at least sometimes) shows references in both directions. They are thus inconsistent.

If references are to be used, they should be specified in both directions, and both names should be shown in the Figure.

According the latest guideline (WG2N1671), figures in CD4 use references between classes in the metamodel, and specify role names in both directions.

CA12 5.2 Figure 6 Te The reference Process InvolvedBy Role in Figure 6 would be more naturally expressed in English as Process Involves Role. The reverse reference should also be shown in the Figure. This is shown in 19763-9 Figure 1 as Role isInvolvedIn Process.

Rename ‘InvolvedBy’ to ‘Involves’ and add the reverse reference, IsInvolvedIn.

The corresponding role names are renamed in CD4.

CA13 5.2 Figure 6 Te Figures 6 shows Process realized by zero or more Relate Process to Service Operation instead of Considering the relationship


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






Services, but services do not actually do work, rather the work is performed by service operations.

Note: A similar comment is made on Part 7.

Service. within RGPS world, it will be better to relate service instead of service operation.

CA14 5.3.2 involvedBy Ed There is a typo in the name on p.10. However, CA12 recommends renaming the reference ot ‘Involves’.

Rename ‘InvolvedBy’ to ‘Involves’. The role names between Process and Role are renamed in CD4.

CA15 All Te Any other errors found before or during the Ballot Resolution meeting should be corrected if consensus can be reached on a resolution.

To be addressed at the BRM as required.

Now draft of CD4 is quite different with that of CD3, please check the draft of CD4 for detailed and latest changes.

END

Japanese comments on 32N2135-CD3_19763-5.pdf Date: Document:

1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






JP 01

1 Scope ge State transition model should be within the scope. Japanese comment on CD2 requesting to include state transition models was not accepted simply because process has been refined to mean business process.. But, a state transition model is useful and important to describe some business processes.

One of the other rationales that the editor gave is that a state transition model is used to represent an internal logic of Web services. But, this is not necessarily true, because internal or external depends on the magnitude of a Web service, which varies a lot, depending on the orchestration level.

Moreover, for example, [8] Business Process Modeling Languages: Sorting Through the Alphabet Soup at Bibliography of CD3, includes Pteri nets and Role Activity Diagrams, both of which are a kind of state transition modeles.

Also, ActivityGraphs , UML1.x is a specialization of State Machine. An action is precisely saying , an Action State. (This is not true in UML 2.x. Activities of UML2.x are very much different from ActivityGraphs , UML1.x, from the point of formalism.) This gives us a good suggestion. That is, a state of a state transition model may be simply mapped to a process of MFI-5.

The Stand-point of JP reviewer (Dr. Masao) is that process is more of dynamic behaviours rather than decomposition. We understand that.

Agreement: State transition model is not on working list of current MFI-5. We would give serious consideration in future version.

JP 02

1 Scope ge Introduction says “it provides selected metadata and common semantics of process models created with a specific process modeling language, including Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), UML(Unified Modeling Language) Activity Diagram, and EPC(Event-driven Process Chain), etc.” But, if we look at Annex B, mappings from models expressed in some languages to MFI PMR are incomplete.

See JP-51, 54-58, 61-62,65-70,72-74, 76-78. Agreement: to set aside the total mapping and transformation temporally, and offer uniform exemplary transformation for each case.

Table B.2 and related parts are deleted.


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






We need to investigate whether process models of MFI PMR can really transformed from process models expressed in these languages

JP 03

2 Normative references

ed ISO/IEC 11179-3, Information technology – Metadata registries (MDR) – Part 3: Registry metamodel and basic attributes (Edition 3)

should be

ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012, Information technology – Metadata registries (MDR) – Part 3: Registry metamodel and basic attributes

Now for no more relationship with MDR, this part is deleted.

JP 04

2 Normative references

ed ISO/IEC DPAS 19505-2 Information technology -- OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Version 2.1.2 -- Part 2: Superstructure,

should be

ISO/IEC DIS 19505-2 Information technology -- OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Version 2.1.2 -- Part 2: Superstructure

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 05

3.1 Terms and definitions

te ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003 should be

ISO/IEC DIS 11179-3:2012


JP 06


te ISO/IEC 19501:2005 should be

ISO/IEC DIS 19505-2

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 07


3.1.7 resource

te “NOTE adapted from ISO/IEC 12207:2008 4.37” should be removed because this is not the same but extended.

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 08


3.1.8

event

te We cannot find such a definition in UML.

Please show the document from which this definition is adapted.

Event Definition changed to: occurrence of a particular set of circumstances. [ISO/IEC 16085:2006 3.2]

JP 09

3.2 Abbreviated terms

MDR ed Metadata Registry

[ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003, 3.4.5]

should be

metadata registry

[ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012, 3.3.6]


JP 10

4.2.1 General ed 4.1.1 should be 4.2.1 Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 11

4.2.2 Strictly conforming

ed 4.1.2 should be 4.2.2


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






implementation

JP 12

4.2.3 Conforming implementation

ed 4.1.3

should be 4.2.3.

JP 13

4.2.2 Strictly conforming implementation

4.2.3 Conforming implementation

ed 5.1

(three places)

should be 5.3.

JP 14

5.1 Overview of MFI PMR

Second sentence at the second paragraph

te / ed ?

It means that a process model can be used to describe the decomposition of a process…

Based on the first sentence “Process_Model is a representation of the structured activities or tasks that comprise a process.” and the definition of process (3.1.1), it does not mean that a process model can be used to describe the decomposition of a process.

Accepted

Done as suggested

Definition of Process and Process Model are also changed.

JP 15

5.1 Overview of MFI PMR

At the second line from the bottom

te “among processes in a process model” should “among processes represented by a process model”

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 16

5.2 Relationships between MFI PMR and other parts in MFI

ge Some need to be Administered Item and some do not.

See WD MFI Part2. Now part-2 moved to part-10,

Based on the new part-10 (core and mapping), the figure is revised.

JP 5.2 Relationships

Figure 6 ed “Metaclasses from MFI Service” should be “Metaclasses from MFI Service Accepted


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






17 between MFI PMR and other parts in MFI

registration” Done as suggested

JP 18

5.2 Relationships between MFI PMR and other parts in MFI

Figure 6 ed “Metaclasses from MFI Role & Goal” should be “Metaclasses from MFI Role and Goal registration”

JP 19

5.3 Metaclasses in MFI PMR

Reference ge Naming of references should be consistent.

Some are (directed) association names such as “creates” at 5.3.2 Process.

Some are role names such as “decomposedBy” such as 5.3.2 Process

Some are different from both of (directed) association names and role names such as “triggeredBy” at 5.3.2

A name of a reference is should the same as the role name.

Revised based on WG2N1671_Modelling_guidelines_for_19763_Revision_2

JP 20

5.3 Metaclasses in MFI PMR

Reference ge For example, there are two attributes “consumes”(: resource) at 5.3.2 Process and “consumedBy” (: Process) at 5.3.6 Resource. but, these attribute are not interpreted as a pair.

Remove one of them. The attribute that is defined at the Class that is responsible for the attribute should remain, like MFI-3.

Or need to introduce a mechanism to define these two references are a pair, something like owl:inversezPropertyOf.

Also see JP-40

The “Inverse” in the new format of section 5.3 (Reference / Class / Multiplicity / Description / Inverse / Precedence) solved this pair problem.

JP 21

5.3.1 Process_Element

describedBy te “describedBy” should be “usedBy”. Also see JP -38,39 Revised based on WG2N1671_Modelling_guidelines_for_19763_Revision_2, like: Process_Model: containing_model

JP 5.3.1 Process_Elem

follows te There are two “follows”. Rename one of them or introduce better class Revised based on WG2N1671_Modelling_guide


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






22 ent hierarchy of Dependency. lines_for_19763_Revision_2, please refer to new 5.3.1

JP 23

5.3.1 Process_Element

describedBy te There are two “followedBy”. Rename one of them or introduce better class hierarchy of Dependency.

JP 24

5.3.1 Process te Since Process is introduced in addition to Process_Model, this Process designates a process, independent of its representation. So, two processes are identical, they should be one identical process. But, it is impossible that the condition that two processes are identical is clearly stated. What is that?

Also, it is almost impossible to extract processes, not process model elements, from a process model represented in some process model language.

None.

We need careful consideration on what a process model and a process are.

Also see JP-33, 35.

Accepted

Now definition of Process Model has been revised as “representation of a process, using a specific modelling language.”

JP 25

5.3.2 Process

5.3.3 Process Model

annotation te Annotation is not an Attribute, but a Reference, because Ontology_Atomic_Construct is not a Data Type.

Annotation should be a Reference and its Description should be “Ontology_Atomic_Constructts representing the non-logical symbol that can be used to annotate the process that is represented by this Process”

Accepted

Done as suggested, please refer to Figure - The relationships between MFI PMR and other parts.

But now, section 5.3 only describes those appeared in Figure - The metamodel of MFI PMR.

JP 26

5.3.2 Process annotation ed Ontology_atomic_construct should be Ontology_Atomic_Construct Accepted

Done as suggested, please refer to Figure - The relationships between MFI PMR and other parts.

But now, section 5.3 only describes those appeared in Figure - The metamodel of MFI PMR.

JP 5.3.2 Process decomposed te Its multiplicity is 0..*, although Figure-2 shows it is 1..1. Also see JP-39. Accepted


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






27 By Now revised as: Process_Model: describing_model: 0..*.

JP 28

5.3.2 Process hasPrecondition

te Description “Precondition that can be the input of a process” is strange because a precondition is a condition and is not an input.

Accepted

Done as suggested.

JP 29

5.3.2 Process hasPostcondition

te Description “Postcondition that can be the output of a process” is strange because a postcondition is a condition and is not an ioutput.

JP 30

5.3.2 Process hasPrecondition,

hasPosetcondition

te It is unclear whether this precondition (or postcondition) is the same as the one of the services that realizes this process. If yes, there are two positions. One is that hasPrecondition (and hasPostcondition) should be removed since unnecessary redundancy should be avoided. The other is that both are necessary to link a Process and Services properly.

The precondition (or postcondition) of process is not same as the one of the services that realizes this process, The one of service is for exact operation and more concrete.

JP 31

5.3.2 Process Constraints te “The value of the attribute “annotation” is declared as the URI of the registered Ontology_Atomic_Construct”

should be removed because Ontology_Atomic_Construct does not have URI (nor IRI).

Accepted

Now this parts is deleted, for section 5.3 only describes those appeared in Figure - The metamodel of MFI PMR.

JP 32

5.3.2 Process realizedBy te The meaning of multiplicity “0..*” is ambiguous. At least, it can have two different meanings. One is that a Process is realizedBy any one of Services. The other is that a Process is realizedBy a set of all the Services.


In Figure - The relationships between MFI PMR and other parts, 0..* means that Process can be assigned none or more Services to realize.


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






JP 33

5.3.2 Process te If we accept process at 3.1.1 and Process at 5.3.2, it is hardly possible to extract Processes from process models created with a specific process modeling language, including BPMN, UML Activity, etc

It should be something like “Process is a metaclass an instance of that designates an element of a process model that represents a process”.

Also see JP-24,35.

Now definition of Process Model has been revised as “representation of a process, using a specific modelling language.”

JP 34

5.3.3 Process Model

ed “Process Model” should be “Process_Model” to be consistent with others.

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 35

5.3.3 Process Model

te “Process_Model is the representation of the structured activities or tasks that comprise a Process” is strange.

The description should be “Process_Model is a metaclass an instance of that designates a process model.”

Rationale:

The current description is about a process model and not metacalass Process_Model.

A Process_Model itself does not represent a process.

A Process is an instance of metaclass Process and not a process. So, structured activities or tasks do not comprise a Process, but a process.

Also see JP-24, 33. Now definition of Process Model has been revised as “representation of a process, using a specific modelling language.”

JP 36

5.3.3 Process Model

URI te URI should be IRI. Common Logic uses IRI. MFI Part3 Ed1 uses URI, but MFI Part3 Ed2 has been changed to use IRI. All the WG2 standards now should use IRI, rather than URI.

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 37

5.3.3 Process Model

URI ed The description should be “IRI that identifies the corresponding process model”

IRI and URI are just identifiers and may not represent a place where it exists.


JP 38

5.3.3 Process Model

describes te “describesl” should be “using”. Revised based on WG2N1671_Modelling_guide


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






lines_for_19763_Revision_2 (paired references for any classes), like: Process_Element: contained_process_element

JP 39

5.3.3 Process Model

decomposes te “decomposes” should be “describes”.

Its multiplicity should be 1..1, rather than 0..*.

Revised based on WG2N1671_Modelling_guidelines_for_19763_Revision_2 (paired references for any classes), like: Process: described_process

JP 40

5.3.4 Process_Model_Language

represents te Reference “representedBy” is enough and this reference should be removed because this link is managed by an administrator of a Process Model, and not by an adminstorator of a Process_Model_Language.

Similarly, in most cases, one of the paired references should be removed.

Also see JP-20.

Revised based on WG2N1671_Modelling_guidelines_for_19763_Revision_2 (paired references for any classes), like: represents expressed_model

JP 41

5.3.6 Resource

Constraints te Should be added an constraint that says “At least one of the cardinalities of consumedBy, createdBy and usedBy has to be more than zero.”, since a Resource here is limited to one participating in a process.

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 42

5.3.8

Sequence_ Dependency

follows te Description “Process that follows a sequence dependency” should be “Process that this sequence dependency follows”

This process is after the Sequence Dependency.

Please check the new references in 5.3.8.

JP 43

5.3.10 Split_Dependency

splitType

Description

ed “by the join dependency” should be “by the split dependency”.

Accepted

Done as suggested

JP 44

5.3.10 Split_Dependency

followedBy te “followedBy” should be “follows”, and its description should be “Process_Element that this Split_Dependency follows”

Accepted

Done as suggested


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






JP 45

5.3.9

Loop_Dependency

followedBy,

follows

te Phrase “before (after) the loop dependency” does not make sense because according to 3.1.4, a loop dependency is a kind of control constraints. What is the meaning of “after (or before) a constraint” ?

(3.1.14) Agree, ed problems, way of description shall be reset.

JP 46

5.3.9

Loop_Dependency

LoopCondition

te This should be a subclass of Precondition. Rejected

Precondition is a metaclass. loop_condition is an attribute and cannot be subclass of Precondition.

JP 47

5.3.11 Join_Dependency

procededBy ed “procededBy” should be “follows” and its description should be “Process_Element that this Join_Dependency follows” to be consistent with others.

Now reference of this part has been changed to preceding_option, please recheck.

JP 48

Annex A Figure A.1.2 ed The style and format should be the same as the ones of MFI Part3 Ed2 as much as possible.

We agree that the ones of MFI Part3 Ed2 are hard to read. We need a discussion and tit may be better to develop the better ones that can be applicable to all the parts of MFI.

Accepted

JP 49

Annex A

Case1

Figure A.1.2

ProcessModel01

ed “model_Language” is “representedBy”. Now we use “describing_language”

JP 50

Annex A

Case1

Figure A.1.2

Process02

te “partfOf” should be “usedBy”. See JP-21. “partOf” here is used to explain affiliation order, not a reference.

JP 51

Annex A

Case1

Figure A.1.2

split01

split02

te The only possible metaclass for split01 and split02 is LoopDependency. But, it is not adequate because these are not loops and their conditions are not loop conditions but guard conditions.

For the metamodel of MFI PMR has been changed, this relevant parts have been redefined as option, please recheck.

JP 52

Annex A

Case1

Figure A.1.2

split01

ed “Order Rejected” should be “order reject” to be consistent with Figure A.1.1.

All revised as “order rejected”


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






guardcondition

JP 53

Annex A Case1

Figure A.1.2

split02

guardcondition

ed “Order Accept” should be “order accepted” to be consistent with Figure A.1.1.

Accepted

Done as suggested.

JP 54

Annex A

Case2

Figure A.2.1

te In BPMN, “Receive”(a message), “Reply”( a message) are treated as events, however, in UML Activity(Action), they are a message receiving action and a message sending action and are not treated as events but almost same as processes.

MFI-5 should have a mechanism to treat them uniformly.

Same as JP02.

Agreement: no more mapping and transformation right now.


JP 55

Annex A

Case2

Figure A.2.1

ed Why all the events “Receive”, “Reply”s, and “Error” are ignored, although In Vase3, even start and end events are included?

Same as JP02.



In this case, we treat “Receive”, as start event and “Reply”s, and “Error” as end event.

JP 56

Annex A

Case3

Figure A.3.1

te Start and End are treated as events in EPC and also in BPMN. So, they are registered as events in MFI-5 as shown at Figure A.3.2.

But, in UML Activity, they are just nodes and not events, and, therefore, are innored in MFI-5.

MFI-5 should have a mechanism to treat start and end uniformly.

Same as JP02.



JP Annex A Figure A.3.1 te What is the problem if in MFI-5, event “Songschosen” is ignored and two processes “Choosesongs” adn

Same as JP02.


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






57

Case3 “Recordsongs” are connected Sequence_Dependency?

This is better because if this processes are described in UML Activity, events are seldom used and it is register in this way, and this EPC model is registered in this way, it is much more easy to find that these two models in EPC and UML Activity are semantically equivalent.



We treat event “”Song_Chosen” as sequencey dependency.

JP 58

Annex A

Case3

Figure A.3.1

te If the logical connector is not an “and” but a “or”, how can MFI-5 register this EPC model?

Event has no association with Split_Dependency.

See JP-72 Same as JP02.



In EPC, we can register event as dependency except for start/end/time-based event. So the relationship between dependency and event will not be needed.

JP 59

Annex A

Case4

Figure A.4.1

ed The Complete code to get Figure A.4.2 should be given.

This code lacks the information on Dependency.

Main body of the code is given now, please check

JP 60

Annex A

Case4

Figure A.4.2

ProcessModel01

ed “Process01:ChargeCreditCard” and “Proces02:OrderGarageApointment” should be “Proces01:QueryWithLocation” and “Process02: QueryWithRoute”.

Accepted Done as suggested

JP 61

Annex A

Case4

Figure A.4.2

Split_Dependency01

te Event “start” cannot be a value of “follows” because its range is Process_Element and an Event is not an Process_Element.

Accepted

We are revising this case.

JP Annex A Figure A.4.2 te What is “End”? If it is an Event, it cannot be a value of Accepted


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






62 Case4 Join_Dependency02

“followedBy” because its range is Process_Element and an Event is not an Process_Element.

Take End as event.

JP 63

Annex B Table B.1 te UML should be ISO/IEC DIS 19505-2 Information technology -- OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Version 2.1.2 -- Part 2: Superstructure, rather than ISO/IEC 19501 UML Version 1.4.2, because 19505-2 will be published as IS before MFI PMR.


JP 64

Annex B Table B.2 ed The meaning of “/” such as “Fork/Exclusive”, “node/pin” is not clear. “,” is better.

Table B.2 is deleted.

JP 65

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

ed “Activity Diagram” should be “Activity (or “Activities”) because ITS diagram notation is optional and it is not necessarily described in a diagram.

Same as JP02.



JP 66

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

te “Activity” (at row “Process”) should be “Action”.

“Activity” corresponds to “Process_Model”.

Same as JP02.



JP 67

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

te “pin” is not necessary, because Pin is subclass of Object node.

Same as JP02.



JP 68

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

te “condition” does not correspond to “Event”. It is a kind of Precondition. In many cases, it is used as a guradCondition of splits.

Same as JP02.

Agreement: no more mapping and transformation


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






right now.


JP 69

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

te Signal is a kind of ObjectNode, and not an event.

Same as JP02.



JP 70

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

te Time should be TimeEvent.

Same as JP02.



JP 71

Annex B Table B.2

Activity Diagram

ed To be precisely consistent with ISO/IEC DIS 19505-2,

“Object node”, “Flow ”, “Folk” ”, “Join”, “fork” should be “ObjectNode”, “ControlFlow”, “ForkNode, DecisionNode”, “JoinNode, MergeNode”, “ControlFlow”.


JP 72

Annex B Table B.2 BPMN

te In BPMN, a gateway is not necessarily followed by an Activity but by an Event. A gateway followed by an event cannot be mapped to Loop_Dependency because te range of followedBy of Loop_Dependency is Process_Element and anEvent is not a Process_Element.

Needs to relax the range of some references of Dependency.

For detail, see gateway “Conference Call in Discussion Week?” at Figure 11.3 - “Discussion Cycle” Sub-Process Details, at p.136., Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 1.2 formal/2009-01-03,

Same as JP02.



JP 73

Annex B Table B.2 IDEF0

te In IDEF0, Input and Output are roles of an arrow and are not resources or objects themselves.

For example, in the case that Box A outputs some chemical, which is an input of Box B, there are two roles, one is chemical as an output and the other is chemical as

Input and Output of IDEF0 should be mapped to attribute:consumes and creates of Process in MFI Part5, respectively.

Same as JP02.


Table B.2 and related parts


1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






input. But, there is only one resource as chemical. are deleted.

JP 74

Annex B Table B.2 IDEF0

te In IDEF0, an arrow has roles of Iinput, Output, Control, Mechanism and Call, and does not necessarily express a Dependency.

For example, a forking arrow may not be mapped to a Split_Dependency.

For details, see Figure 12. Connections Between Boxes at p.24, Draft Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183 1993 December 21 Announcing the Standard for INTEGRATION DEFINITION FOR FUNCTION MODELING (IDEF0)

Same as JP02.



JP 75

Annex B Table B.2

PSL

ed Activity and Resource of PSL should be activity and resource because PSL does not use capital letters for its non-logical symbols.


JP 76

Annex B Table B.2

PSL

te For example, a Resource mapped from a resource of PSL should have a link to Process via consumedBy, createdBy or usedBy. But, how can this information be got from a PSL model?

These kind of issues needs to be examined to validate the metamodel of MFI-5.

Same as JP02.



JP 77

Annex B Table B.2

PSL

te In PSL, type (or class) and occurrence (or instance, individual) are strictly distinguished.

For example, an Activity is (an instance of ) a type, and an Activity occurrence is (an instance of ) an occurrence.

MFI Part5 does handles no occurrence (or instance, individual) .

Activity occurrence in PSL should not be mapped to Process in MFI Part5 and should be ignored in MFI Part5.

Same as JP02.



JP 78

Annex B Table C.2

PSL

te PSL Part13 Duration and ordering theories has Subactivity occurrence ordering core Theory.

They should be mapped to Dependency properly.

Same as JP02.




1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

MB1


No./ Annex

(e.g. 3.1)



Type of

com-ment2






JP 79

Bibliography [1] te Business Process Modeling Notation(BPMN 1.1), OMG Document Number: formal/2008-01-17, February, 2008. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.1/PDF.

should be

Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0, OMG Document Number: formal/2011-01-03, January, 2011. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0


JP 80

Bibliography [6] te Unified Modeling Language(UML 1.4), OMG Document Number: formal/2001-09-67, 2001. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/1.4/PDF.

should be removed.

It should be ISO/IEC DIS 19505-2 Information technology -- OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Version 2.1.2 -- Part 2: Superstructure, at 2 Normative reference



Template for comments and secretariat observations Date: 5 September 2011 Document: ISO/IEC CD3 19763-5

GB 01 General ed There remain a number of areas where the English could be improved.

GB 02 Foreword ed The list of parts of 19763 needs revising to reflect changes agreed at the Hawaii meeting.

Agree.

In CD4, the list of parts of 19763 is revised based on the changes in SC32/WG2 meetings.

GB 03 2 te There is a reference to ISO/IEC 19763-1:2007. This is now out of date and, anyway, does not include 19763-5. A new version is under preparation.

Remove dated reference, allowing for the latest version to be referenced.

Agree.

The reference to 19763-1 is changed to the latest version of Part1.

GB 04 2 te There is a reference to ISO/IEC DPAS 19505-2. Why is this a normative reference? It is not necessary to reference this document to implement 19763-5.

Remove reference. Agree.

The reference to ISO/IEC DPAS 19505-2 is removed in CD4.

GB 05 3.1.3, 3.1.5 ed Inconsistency: "modeling" in 3.1.3 and "modelling" in 3.1.5.

Use "modelling" throughout. Agree.

CD4 uses ‘modelliing’ throughout the document.

GB 06 3.1.9, 3.1.10

ed Since 19763-5 is a metamodel for the registration of process models a definition that refers to services is inappropriate.

Replace with a definition that talks of processes. In CD4, the definitions of precondition and postcondition are revised to address processes only.

GB 07 3.1.11, 3.1.12, 3.1.13, 3.1.14

ed "kind of control constraints" should be singular. Replace with "kind of control constraint". Agree.

The definitions are revised in CD4.

GB 08 3.2 MFI Core

ed Reference should be to 19763-2 Amend reference. Agree.

Changed to 19763-10.

Template for comments and secretariat observations Date: 5 September 2011 Document: ISO/IEC CD3 19763-5

GB 09 5 Figures 2, 3, 4 and 6

te This metamodel is much improved but there are still a number of issues:

(1) There are some inconsistencies between the figures.

(2) Not all associations are named with a verb for the association itself and a role name (noun) for each metaclass involved in the association, as agreed in Hawaii.

(3) Some of the multiplicities are incorrect.

(4) Italics are not used consistently to indicate abstract metaclasses.

(5) Loop_Dependency is not needed – all the functionality can be accommodated by a combination of instances of Join_Dependency, Split_Dependency and/or Sequence_Dependency.

(6) Exit_Condition, a condition that will cause a process to terminate before completion, is needed as well as Pre_Condition and Post_Condition.

Amend metamodel and supporting text as appropriate.

(A revised metamodel, according to our understanding of the requirement, is attached, but note that Loop_Dependency is still included)

Agree on (1)-(4). The metamodel are revised in CD4.

(5) We think it’s better to keep Loop_Dependency in CD4. Although it can be accommodated by combining the other kinds of dependencies, it will more convenient to take it as a individual dependency.

(6)We agree that Exit_Condition should be considered in CD4. However, we are wondering that if it is needed to add in part5. If UK suggests to add Exit_Condition in MFI-7, we think it is better to import this metaclass from MFI-7, just like Precondition and Postcondition.

GB 10 5 Figure 5 te This shows all the metaclasses specified in this part as inheriting indirectly from Registered_Item from MDR. This is incorrect. Identifiable_Item and its subtypes and Designatable_Item in the latest edition of MDR-3 are types that are used to extend instances of the metaclasses. MFI-2 will provide three metaclasses, Model, ModelElement and ModellingLanguage. Each metaclass in MFI-5 should be subclasses of one of these three metaclasses, with their instances extended by the appropriate types that are specified in MDR-3.

Amend diagram. In CD4, the metaclasses in MFI-5 will inherit corresponding metaclasses in MFI Core directly, instead of inheriting MDR directly.

GB 11 Annex A Figures A.1.2, A.2.2, A.3.2, A.4.2

te ProcessModel01 in each case: These only show the processes that are included in the process models. The dependencies should also be shown.

Add dependencies. Agree.

Instances of Dependency are added into Annex A in CD4.


Comments on CD1 Text For: ISO/IEC CD 19763-05 Information technology — Metamodel framework for interoperability – Part 5: Metamodel for process model registration

Date: 201109-29 Document: SC32/N2135

0 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

# NB1


No./ Annex


/ Note #

Com- ment type2

Comment (justification for change) by the NB Proposed change by the NB Secretariat observations on each comment submitted

1 NB = National body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the Secretariat editing unit are identified by **) page 1 of 24

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory. ISO electronic balloting commenting template (enhanced 2002-08)

02 US Introduction Ed to register Change to “for registration of” Accepted Done as suggested

03 US Ed Especially, - not appropriate Remove; replace with “In particular” Accepted Done as suggested

04 US 1 Ed Provides – inappropriate Replace with “describes” Accepted Done as suggested

05 US 1 Ed (bibliography item I think you can drop “bibliography item” in favour of just [1]; all cases that follow as well


06 US 1 Ed can help discover – the metamodel itself doesn’t help discover

“can help discovery of” Accepted Done as suggested

07 US 1 Te How does the metamodel aid in discovery? Provide explanation of discovery facilitation

Accepted The metamodel offers a structured guideline which highlights the common semantics of process models and can instruct people in their discovering, for example, <process element, dependency> pair can help people clear the relationship between processes.

08 US 1 Ed and reuse its components “and promotes reuse of its components” Accepted Done as suggested

09 US 1 Ed rather than all of them I don’t understand this phrase. Accepted

10 US 2 Ed Superstructure, - comma not necessary Remove comma Accepted Done as suggested

11 US 3.1.5 Ed process modelling language

Different spelling of “modelling.” If this is the spelling in other parts, use it throughout this part


12 US 3.1.6 Ed relation Use “relationship” Accepted This part is deleted

13 US 3.1.12 Ed fire Use “trigger” Accepted Done as suggested

14 US 3.1.13 Ed fired Replace with “triggered” Accepted Done as suggested



0 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

# NB1


No./ Annex


/ Note #

Com- ment type2




15 US MFI PMR Ed interoperability( Insert space before open parenthesis Accepted Done as suggested

16 US MFI Goal and Role registration

Ed interoperability( Insert space before open parenthesis Accepted Done as suggested

17 US MFI Service registration

Ed interoperability( Accepted Done as suggested

18 US (a) Te “shall be applied to the metamodel specified in 5.1” An implementation is not “applied to a metamodel”;rather, the implementation is “structured according to”

Replace ‘applied to” with “structured according to”


19 US 4.1.2 (b) Te shall not be applied to any extensions to Replace with “shall not support any extensions to”


20 US 4..3 (a) Te Same as (a) above Accepted Done as suggested

21 US Te may be applied to extensions Replace with “may support” extensions” Accepted Done as suggested

22 US 5.1 Ed Figure Replace with Figures Accepted Done as suggested

23 US 5.1 2 Ed Process_Model Replace with “any specific Process_Model”


24 US Figure 2 Ed decribed Should be describes Accepted Done as suggested

25 US Ed one or more following Replace with “one or more of the following” Accepted Done

26 US Ed Similarly, The Replace with “Similarly, the” Accepted Done

27 US Ed means Replace with “mean” (plural) Accepted

28 US 5.2 Ed which inherit Replace with “ which inherits” Accepted Deleted

29 US 5.2 2-4 Te “Goal can be achieved by zero to many instances of Process.” It’s less useful to describe what’s in the diagram than explain why the values are the way they are.

For instance, what’s the implication that Goal can be achieved by 0 Processes?

Accepted In certain cases, no process instance assigned to achieve a specific goal.

30 US 5.3.1 1 Ed It Change to “Process_Element” Accepted



0 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

# NB1


No./ Annex


/ Note #

Com- ment type2




Done as suggested

31 US 5.3.1 Table Ed Description or definition? If the latter, put in ISO 704 format

Use “Description”

32 US Constraints Ed Ontology_Atomic_Construct Follow with a period. Ontology_Atomic_Construct is now registered as metaclass instead of attribute.

33 US 5.3.6 Te Administered_item; font is different Make reference not just to MDR but to the specific edition. AI has been renamed

This part is deleted

34 US 5.3.11 Ed successor process starts. a successor process starts. Definition changed.

35 US Appendix A Case 1 Ed with online order Replace with “an online order” or with “online ordering“


36 US Ed handle details “handling details”? Accepted Done as suggested

37 US Ed , Ship Oder E Ship Order Whoud b


38 US App. A Figure A.1.1 Ed Shorten Figure label as described for Table of Figures


39 US Ed Make Payment Should be MakePayment? Accepted Done as suggested

40 US Ed Accept Payment Should be AcceptPayment? Accepted Done as suggested

41 US Case 2 Ed a fault will handled a fault will triggered? Accepted Done as suggested

42 US Ed results satisfied Results satisfy Accepted Done as suggested

43 US Ed are confirm are confirmed Accepted Done as suggested

44 US Te Not sure of meaning of “Evaluate Rental Result”

Accepted Description changed

45 US Figure A.2.1 Ed Amend Figure label Accepted

46 US Figure A.3.1 Ed Amend Figure label Accepted

47 US Ed The output of this process is the resulting information.

The output of this process is the information resulting from the query.


48 US Appendix B 1 Ed Delete “can’ Accepted Done as suggested



0 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)

# NB1


No./ Annex


/ Note #

Com- ment type2




49 US Table B.1 Ed Remove “bibllography item” Accepted Done as suggested

50 US Table .1B Ed Use ISO 704 formats for definitions, or use 20943 Accepted Done as suggested

51 US Ed Diagrams is Diagrams are Accepted Done as suggested

52 US Bibliography 1 Ed First reference is in different font Accepted Done as suggested

53 US 6 Ed Language(UML Space before opening parenthesis Accepted Done as suggested

54 US Ed 2008-12,Available Use semicolon instead of comma and lower case available


55 US 5.1 Figure 2 General

Replace reference “creates” (between Process and Resource) with “produces” as it goes better with “consumes”

Replace reference “creates” (between Process and Resource) with “produces” as it goes better with “consumes”

After discussion, we keep the way it was as “create”

56 US 5.1 Figure 2 textual description

General

Following use of “generalized” is incorrect: “Dependency represents the control constraints among processes in a process model. In this part, it can be generalized as Sequence_Dependency, Split_Dependency, Join_Dependency, and Loop_Dependency.”

Consider replacing “generalized” with “extended” or “Specialized”


57 US 5.3.1 Reference “followedBy”

Technical

Should read “Sequence_Dependency than can follow the process element”

Replace Split_Dependency” with “Sequence_Dependency”

Accepted Done

58 US 3.2 MFI PMR ed Make this abbreviation follow the same pattern as the rest of the abbreviations for MFI 19763 parts

Change to MFI Process model registration Accepted Done as suggested


iso/iec jtc 1/sc 32 n 2259jtc1sc32.org/doc/n2251-2300/32n2259-disp_of... · iso/iec jtc 1/sc 32 n...

Documents