Talk:Comparison of Business Process Model and Notation modeling tools

Remove "Latest release" column ?
As a reader, I find the column with the date of the latest release only slightly informative. It takes a lot of screen real estate and does not add much information. It is also a piece of information that will change frequently (the higher the number of tools in this article, the more frequently this page will have to change), so this information is at the risk of being outdated. I would suggest to remove the column. What do you think ? Karl Magnus (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup needs
BPMN stands for Business Process Model and Notation _not_ Business Process Modeling Notation - suggest change accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.169.108 (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC) This article needs to be cleaned up in the columns "Platform / OS" and "Software License". Examples: --178.128.104.64 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Platform / OS
 * 2) Once "/" is uses, once ",", then "+", etc. to separate entries. Please unify. Further please unify the order in which these entries are named, preferably alphabetical order.
 * 3) A "?" has no place in an encyclopedia! Either KNOW what you write, or leave it out.
 * 4) "Cloud", "Browser based" and "Cross-Platforms" are no platforms. Please specify the EXACT platforms that the installations need.
 * 5) Some Linux Distributions are explicitly named, e.g. "Red Hat Linux". Why? Does the software indeed run ONLY on Red Hat Linux (I doubt that extremely).
 * 6) Correct spelling of Names. "SUSE" is not the official name of any of their products ("openSUSE", "SUSE Linux Enterprise", etc. would be correct spellings). Neither is "Mac" the correct spelling of an Apple platform ("Mac OS X" would be a correct version for Macs). Please always keep in mind that you are editing an official encyclopedia, not some privately used "collection list" of BPMN software.
 * 7) Software License
 * 8) Neither "Commercial" nor "open source" are licenses. "Commercial Software" is a business model (that can be licensed with a proprietory license but very well also be Free/Libre Software). Open Source defines the handling of the source code and no information about the license. Since we are in an encyclopedia here, we need to be handling things precisely, on an academic level, distinguishing those details very well from each other.
 * 9) Suggestion: Change the column name to "Business model" and then tag the entries with "Commercial, Freeware, Shareware, FLOSS, Cardware, etc.". If the license should be considered interesting, too, then add an additional column stating the license, which would be e.g.: "EULA, GPLv2, BSD License, etc."
 * 10) Please link all entries to their Wikipedia entry the first time that they are listed here, e.g. "Windows", "Shareware", "GPLv3", etc.

This entry needs a heading
This article was marked as "to be deleted", because of: "nothing but a table of external links in violation of WP:EL". Since then I've changed my table, added links to other wikipedia articles and managed external links correctly. That's why I removed the "to be deleleted" code. Because there's no list of BPMN tools on wikipedia, I find this article to be useful and informational.

I've also contacted a few people on IRC (#wikipedia-en) which suggested me to remove the "to be deleted" tag, stating "I find lists like that informational". - Student-sl (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking the entries that had Wikipedia articles. I've gone ahead and removed all the entries that had only external links, since their notability is not established. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation to add more information
Great that this is documented, however it would be useful to include some more detail on the broad fuctionality supported e.g. BPMN version 1.1, 2.0, BPEL, BPMN XML, BPMN simulation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leggattst (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree: BPMN version and conformance level? Also whether Diff against BPMN imports is supported? (If you are using more than 1 tool for BPMN editing you need to know what has changed in every move of a model or model part). Isvana (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What about Yaoqiang BPMN Editor? 78.54.15.9 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest release from BizAgi seems to be Version 9.1.9 May 2012. Retrieved from their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.190.2 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How about information on the process modeling notation that the "Be Informed" Semantic Business Process Platform uses (Dutch vendor "Be Informed")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.176.219 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The open source (and free) diagramming software, Dia, supports BPNM creation (https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Dia) 83.249.141.19 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please add new entries in alphabetical order - latest ones are appended at the end ;-) Isvana (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We might also want to add these common tools: Camunda Modeler, Signavio Process Manager and the Confluence plug-ins Lucidchart and gliffy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cra~dewiki (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Features" column overloaded
Many of entries in this table have the "features" cell overloaded with marketing stuff, likely copy/paste from the products' various websites, but in any event far more wordy than a table like this accommodates. Providing a one-inch column with a hundred or so words is not conducive to clear communication of the features.

It's not necessary for any of these to have more than about a dozen words. If the software package is notable, a reader can look to the package's own article for the detail. If it's not notable, I question why it should even be listed, but in any event a verbose table entry is not a good substitute for an article.

This came to my attention because of recently added spam on Signavio, but it is by far not the only offender. TJRC (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (update) I've edited a couple of these, but others still need work. I also note that in a lot of cases, the data in the cells don't comport with the table headings.  The first two columns in particular are frequently reversed. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Features column should be structured information, not a marketing blurb. It would useful to establish a list of functionalities, that we would want to highlight and then creates columns for each. For example,
 * Process modeling
 * Process execution
 * Syntax validation
 * Import models
 * Export models
 * would come to my mind as a start. Any other suggestions or objections to this approach? Karl Magnus (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)