Комментарии к записи: Роботы с людьми не разговаривают

Автор: Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:57:13 +0000

Cristian

You ask good questions.

Indeed if e.g. a data-based gateway (automatic by nature) may be used in a process diagram intended for manual execution (humans performing process engine’s functions, including gateways execution) then why shouldn’t message events and event gateways be used, too?

Yet there is some difference. Suppose we are switching from manual to engine-driven process execution. Ideally the process diagram shouldn’t change on the transition. And it doesn’t when it concerns data-based gateway. Yet if it’s about message events and message gateways then process engine would be unable to process a nonformal “message” like a phone call or unstructured email - only something like a SOAP.

Therefore I’d prefer to utilize a none start event for a process instantiated by an unstructured message, whether it’s manual or engine-driven. (The semantic of the none start event is voluntary start by a user.) For the same reason I’d use a user task for unstructored messages awaited in the middle of the process execution - again, whether the process is manual or engine-driven.

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:41:58 +0000

The problem I see in considering message event an automatic item only is that by classifying it technically, you take out its semantic from the manual process modeling. And then there is no way to express that semantic need in manual processes.

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:36:46 +0000

And knowing how to model manual processes is not optional. I remember you also think at most 10% of all processes, the critical ones, must be turned into executables. The rest will be modeled as manual, right? The question is how?!

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:29:40 +0000

Question of post 80 was rhetoric, because if you used User task instead of intermediate message catch, you would contradict what you say in ‘command vs respond’, ie that ‘get payment’ is not a task, but an event. But since I proposed to model the process for manual execution, according to your ‘robots don’t talk to humans’ philosophy, one can’t use message event. I find this a deadlock situation. Which makes me think of math demonstrations of some theorem using the approach of taking opposed conclusion of theorem as hypothesis and reaching some contradiction, proving this way the opposed conclusion is false, so theorem conclusion is true. My point is if we make some assumptions about the semantics of bpmn, and our assumptions lead to contradictions, then some assumptions -maybe our assumptions - are wrong. You may remember that math theories are often based on axioms systems which must, among others, be independent of one another and non-contradicting. I think this is not the case for many of bpmn2 assumptions. What I find surprising is that even Bruce Silver seems to have changed his opinion again, according to what I read in his book and according to what he ‘recommends’ now differently - according to Rowan’s last post found here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/BPMNforum/tbxh5MpKRxg

I guess him, like all of us, constantly tries to make sense of bpmn’s multiflavored ambiguities…

In my opinion Receive Payment in 1.2 should be a intermediate message event even when process is not executable in an engine. Which is different from your idea that message event is a robot. I think it may be both…or you have a problem, unless someone shows me where I am wrong.

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 12:54:55 +0000

Would you use a User task instead of Receive Payment event?

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 12:18:56 +0000

Would you still use Payment Received intermediate catch event?

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 12:13:53 +0000

But if gateways are ok in manual processes, why not accept message events as well? I was asking earlier how would you model 1.2 if it was a manual process?

Автор: Anatoly Belychook

Anatoly Belychook — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 06:01:49 +0000

Exactly what do we mean by calling an element automatic? Does it mean it is performed by a software? Nope. Gateways are automatic. Do we use them in process diagrams designed for comuter-less execution? Sure.

There is always a process engine behind a BPMN model. It may be a software engine or it may be a human playing the same role: route the workflow, execute handoffs, send/receive messages etc. More precisely, process participants work for the engine in turn.

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:09:50 +0000

Would you comment at lest on 66 and 72 when you have time, please?

Автор: Cristian

Cristian — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 19:12:57 +0000

@65: But sometimes the process logic, such as some following gateway, makes more sense if the interactions just before the gateway where shown, because otherwise the task name must imply the interactions and that would be too much,I guess. In that case, the question used to label the gateway makes more sense if in the show interactions some text was used to label messages etc.