I’m in the process of exporting my BPMN artifacts to model explorer.
I have just noticed that after some back and forth I ended up w annotations a bit all over the place.
Some of them show associated to lanes:
Others show associated to BPMN diagrams:
I’m assuming that when I created the annotations sometimes I placed them on pools, and others outside, and therefore VP associate them to the diagram.
Here’s the question.
I would understand that an annotation could be associated to a diagram however, in the model explorer the annotations are being shown at the bottom of all the diagrams, and not assigned as children of a diagram or lane.
What do you suggest I do?
For the record I have no need for a “meta-annotation” that I can just drag from the model explorer to my models. Technically I can do it from the BPMN item palette.
First you need to understand the fact that, in model element level, a model element can own other child model elements, and it can also own sub-diagrams. The Model Explorer reflects exactly that and no more. A diagram does not own model element, it owns the diagram elements (i.e. views) of model elements instead. That is why you won’t see a model element appear under a diagram in the Model Explorer. If you would like to see the hierarchical relationship of a diagram with its diagram elements, you should check the Diagram Navigator instead.
For the annotations not fall into pool/lane problem, have you ensure that the diagram elements of those annotations are master views when you move them into the pool/lane? If they are not master views, the parent-child hierarchy won’t change even you move them in the diagram.
You can always rearrange model elements by drag-and-drop them to the desired parent in Model Explorer.
I found a way to have the annotations be assigned to the pool. I just dragged them out, and dragged them back in. That seems to be enough for the system to reassign them.
However, I now have a something I would like to ask.
Why are annotations only assigned at the pool level on the model explorer?
Is it because I did something wrong, or is it because that’s the way you configured the system.
Here’s why this is important to me.
If we had the annotations at the pool level, it would be able to know what they mean by association to the pool. This way it seems that I would have to name the annotations to quickly zone into them.
Hi Filipe, I guess you ask why even you put the annotation to lane, but still it becomes under the pool? It is because in VP, artifacts (e.g. text annotation, data object) can be placed across multiple lanes, in order to support this, we have made artifacts to be owned by pool but not a specific lane.
