Talk:Business Process Model and Notation

message: 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 ===
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)
thread_title:  Figures in this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Figure on top of the article 

message: For example, how does BPMN relate to BPML, BPEL and YAWL. --Raboof 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to other things 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tools 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Back colour is allowed in pools, which is having 1 or 2 lanes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weakness: converting BPMN to executable environments??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Tramline border"??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison of BPMN versions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Business Process Model and Notation 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Figures in this article (2) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison of BPMN versions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706013817/http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/Notations_and_Workflow_Patterns.pdf to http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/Notations_and_Workflow_Patterns.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706013908/http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/Mapping_BPMN_to_BPEL_Example.pdf to http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/Mapping_BPMN_to_BPEL_Example.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818123649/http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/BPMN_V1-0_May_3_2004.pdf to http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/BPMN_V1-0_May_3_2004.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/BPMN_Sections_1_and%202CMP.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can Anyone Explain "Close Connection" Banner?