BPMN objects on Non-BPMN diagrams

[Paolo F Cantoni]

BPMN (and especially v2.0) is a good mechanism for modelling real business processes.

The standard states:
2.1.3 Visual Appearance
A key element of BPMN is the choice of shapes and icons used for the graphical elements identified in this specification.
The intent is to create a standard visual language that all process modelers will recognize and understand. An implementation that creates and displays BPMN Process Diagrams SHALL use the graphical elements, shapes, and
markers illustrated in this specification.
Note – There is flexibility in the size, color, line style, and text positions of the defined graphical elements, except where otherwise specified (see page 41).
The following extensions to a BPMN Diagram are permitted:

•  New markers or indicators MAY be added to the specified graphical elements. These markers or indicators could be used to highlight a specific attribute of a BPMN element or to represent a new subtype of the corresponding concept.
•  A new shape representing a kind of Artifact MAY be added to a Diagram, but the new Artifact shape SHALL NOT conflict with the shape specified for any other BPMN element or marker.
•  Graphical elements MAY be colored, and the coloring MAY have specified semantics that extend the information conveyed by the element as specified in this standard.
•  The line style of a graphical element MAY be changed, but that change SHALL NOT conflict with any other line style REQUIRED by this specification.
•  An extension SHALL NOT change the specified shape of a defined graphical element or marker (e.g., changing a square into a triangle, or changing rounded corners into squared corners, etc.).

The reference to page 41 above relates the section 7.4 Use of Text, Color, Size, and Lines in a Diagram which further elucidates what may and may not be done on a BPMN diagram.

In the main EA does a reasonable job of finding the balance between enforcing the standard but providing the flexibility the standard allows for.

However, I'm coming up against a problem.

It seems to me that the standard can quite rightly dictate how BPMN objects are to be depicted or rendered on BPMN diagrams.  However, I don't believe it (nor EA) should constraint the modeller in diagrams other than BPMN diagrams.  So, for example, we use the "so called" Rectangle Notation for various elements that have specific rendered shapes (such as UML Activities, or Actors etc).  These appear on special purpose diagrams which are not like any other standards based diagrams and fulfil a specific purpose in the enterprise-wide repositories we produce.

We make extensive use of the additional compartments available in Rectangle notation (especially the Notes Compartment).

Consequently, it came as a surprise that when we applied these diagrammatic techniques to the BPMN objects, EA steadfastly refused to follow our commands.  Even though we had specified that we allowed non-conformant diagrams.

Before I submit a formal bug report/feature request, I thought I'd gauge opinion on this.  It seems to me that standards are increasingly going to specify how things must be rendered on their own diagrams, but that shouldn't constrain us in other diagrams types and EA should support the ability to render any object in any way the modeller desires - so long as it does not violate the appropriate standard (which the escape clause that EA allows non-conformant models already via the Tools|Options...|Diagram| [  ] Strict UML Syntax checkbox).

Thoughts?

Paolo