Consider removing/redefining Change Event Tuple (Base Group)

[FlavioRizzolo]

It's unclear what's the role of Change Event Tuple since it has no attributes and the information it conveys, i.e. source and target Identifiable Artifacts, could be maintained directly in the in Change Event.

This is also part of the feedback from Canada (issue #13 .4)

Proposal: remove class and move source and target to Change Event.

[andreapetres]

We are trying to find the elements in GSIM for modeling business processes and have some suggestions related to Base Group, please see them below:

• adding Machine connected to Agent (besides Individual and Organization);
• adding Activity (an Activity may be described on different levels: Process, Sub-process, Process step, Task could be subtypes of Activity -- most of these are already there;
• changing Change Event to Event: an Activity is triggered by an Event;
• adding Relationship to the model;
• adding Responsibility (as subtype of Relationship) and the elements of the RASCI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Support, Consulted, Informed) connected to Agent in Role and Activity, as Agent in Role may only be connected to Activity through a type of Responsibility.

I have attached a process model as an example and an UML showing this part of the Base Group.
BaseGroup_ProcessExample.pdf
BaseGroup.pdf

[FlavioRizzolo]

We could:

• Add Machine
• Link Process Step to Change Event. Not sure about the renaming though, something to discuss, and I don't think we need Activity, but I'm opened to be convinced.
• Add Relationship, if it's between Agents, .e.g. and Individual with and Organization.
• Add Responsibility as an attribute with an open controlled vocabulary (mention RASCI as an example), not sure where (to be discussed).

[InKyungChoi]

See updated version based on the last meeting #40

1. For Software Agent, I propose

• Definition: software that carries out tasks based on business logic or control flow
• Explanatory text: Examples: google bot
• Synonyms: PROV “Software Agent”, DDI “Machine"

2. It was proposed to add an attribute “Type of Role” to Role with controlled vocabulary (RASCI as an example). But I think this is confusing as Role has its own sub-types (Owner, Contact, etc.). I propose an attribute

   • Name: Responsibility (RASCI itself is called "Responsibility assignment matrix"...)
   • Description: For example, Responsible, Accountable, Support, Consulted, Informed
   • Cardinality: 0..1
   • Value Type: ControlledVocabulary

3. I added association between Process Step and Change Event, association between Business Process and Role. For both, association names are missing. Also, I wonder Role should be associated with Process Step, not Business Process.

[FrancineK]

1. Agree with point 1. I was going to propose that we use GSIM terms for tasks (process steps) and business logic/control flow (process control)
2. We should move to the next version
3. Change Event triggers a Process Step. I think we should modify the definition of Role so we can leave that association to a Business Process through the relationship between Agent In Role and Identifiable Artefacts: responsible function, associated to an Agent, involved in a Identifiable Artefact. The reason is, the "Role" of "Owner" can be involved directly in a Dataset (this is also supported by Prov-O, prov:wasAttributedTo), the role of Maintainer in a Classification.

[FrancineK]

The Referential Metadata Subject should be Referential Metadata Attribute

[FlavioRizzolo]

To be implemented in EA UML.