BPMN20.xsd latest normative version is not valid
Farrukh Najmi
The OASIS ebXML RegRep TC is using BPMN 2.0 as a dependency for our
RegRep 4 specification. We were surprised to find that the latest
bpmn2.0.xsd that we were using previously:
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/20100501/BPMN20.xsd
is no longer available.
Worse yet, the latest normative version on August 10, 2011:
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100501/BPMN20.xsd
does not even pass basic schema validation (cannot resolve import for
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100501/DiagramInterchange.xsd ).
Apparently it should be "http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100501/DI.xsd"
There are several problems here:
First, the OMG seems to remove older versions of specs and artifacts
like published schemas rather than leave them be and just publish a
new version at a new location.
Next, it seems that normative OMG specs do not seem to be published
with basic due diligence to make sure the schemas and xml files are
valid.
All this makes it very hard for the spec to be adopted by othes and
makes me very concerned about the status and health of BPMN 2.0 latest
specs.
Please forgive me if I am mistaken in my findings. I would be very
grateful for someone knowledgeable to please comment on my
observations and suggest how to deal with this current problem. Thanks
in advance.
Bruce Silver
Farrukh,
Not sure why you say “not valid”. It is true that OMG changed the XSD significantly between the beta and the final spec, including the filenames (there are 5) and namespaces. The final BPMN20.xsd includes and imports the other XSD files correctly. You need to base your work on the final standard. Also, note that the BPMN2.0 By Example document on the OMG website is not based on the final XSD, and has other errors besides.
Bruce Silver
Principal, Bruce Silver Associates/BPMessentials
Farrukh Najmi
Thank you for your response.
I assume the final spec is here?
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
If so, it references the following xsd:
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100501/BPMN20.xsd
That xsd and associated xsd do not pass schema validation.
This is noted in the following issue:
http://www.omg.org/issues/issue16398.txt
Please note that I am not using the BPMN2.0 By Example documents and only looking at the normative xsd linked above.
Not sure why you do not see the same issue that I see and that are noted in http://www.omg.org/issues/issue16398.txt.
Lastly, IMHO, OMG should keep older versions in the same location when they publish new versions. This is standard practive in standards groups in my experience.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPMN Users Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpmn-use...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpmn-users-gro...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpmn-users-group?hl=en.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Farrukh Najmi
I would really appreciate if you or anyone can tell me where I can find a fixed version of the final spec xsd files that pass XML Schema Validation.
I am assuming that you are one of the spec authors. Where can I find the complete membership of the spec team for BPMN 2.0?
My need is urgent as this is a critical issue for the OASIS ebXML RegRep 4.0 spec before it goes final. I would be glad to help the spec team find a fix for the http://www.omg.org/issues/issue16398.txt in case my XML Schema experience can be of any use.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Farrukh
Bruce Silver
Hmmm… This is really strange. You have the right URL for the xsd files, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100501/, but it looks like someone replaced the file BPMN20.xsd dated 1/20/2011 with an earlier version 10/5/2009! I am pretty sure it was not always like that, since this is where I downloaded the xsd files. Here is the correct file… I don’t know where it is on the web now (seems like a major screwup from OMG):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:bpmndi="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/DI" targetNamespace="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL" elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xsd:import namespace="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/DI" schemaLocation="BPMNDI.xsd"/>
<xsd:include schemaLocation="Semantic.xsd"/>
<xsd:element name="definitions" type="tDefinitions"/>
<xsd:complexType name="tDefinitions">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element ref="import" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element ref="extension" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element ref="rootElement" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element ref="bpmndi:BPMNDiagram" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element ref="relationship" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="id" type="xsd:ID" use="optional"/>
<xsd:attribute name="name" type="xsd:string"/>
<xsd:attribute name="targetNamespace" type="xsd:anyURI" use="required"/>
<xsd:attribute name="expressionLanguage" type="xsd:anyURI" use="optional" default="http://www.w3.org/1999/XPath"/>
<xsd:attribute name="typeLanguage" type="xsd:anyURI" use="optional" default="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"/>
<xsd:attribute name="exporter" type="xsd:string"/>
<xsd:attribute name="exporterVersion" type="xsd:string"/>
<xsd:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:element name="import" type="tImport"/>
<xsd:complexType name="tImport">
<xsd:attribute name="namespace" type="xsd:anyURI" use="required"/>
<xsd:attribute name="location" type="xsd:string" use="required"/>
<xsd:attribute name="importType" type="xsd:anyURI" use="required"/>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:schema>
Bruce Silver
Principal, Bruce Silver Associates/BPMessentials
Farrukh Najmi
Thank you Bruce! This makes sense that the problem is mechanical rather than lack of due diligence.
Any chance you could post a zip of the entire directory of xsd files that are all mutually consistent and the latets version? That would be nirvana and allow us to make progress in OASIS RegRep TC. Lastly, do you know how we can get the web site issue resolved within OMG?
Thanks again for your big help.
Reiner Hille
Bruce Silver
Yes, looks fixed. The file is dated Aug 2011 (no longer 2009).
Bruce Silver
Principal, Bruce Silver Associates/BPMessentials
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPMN Users Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpmn-users-group/-/rZPW_mocqkAJ.