VT
Hi,
wondering of the following EPC is correct? thks!
Hello Mr. veran tan,
I tend to say that this EPC isn't correct. If I get you right, the right side will come to an end under certain conditions. If that is true, there has to be a function that takes the decision (XOR) whether the loop has to go on or has to end (maybe this decision could be made out of "Manual Function Level 3"?).
If the process has to go on after the right "Event", you would have to make a connection to the next function. But one of the first rules of the EPC is that an Object has exactly ONE ingoing link (I don't know the correct name of the german word "Kante") and ONE outgoing link. In your model there is already one outgoing link from the event (for the loop), so there can't be another link to go on.
The constellation of the AND and XOR connectors is correct. Because the process doesn't make a decision at this point, it is just a connection (remember: there is only ONE ingoing and ONE outgoing pointer for an object, therefore this XOR connectors are needed).
It would be good to see more of the process.
I hope you understand what I wanted to say. Sorry for my bad english. I haven't had to use english for quite a long time...
The free use of AND in ePC makes a lot of confusion.
Have you ever think about the definition of an AND? Mathematical definition of the AND term defines it as SEVERAL INPUTS which PRODUCT ONE OUTPUT. The way people use AND in ARIS doesn't make sense when you have AND operator with ONE INPUT and SEVERAL OUTPUTS. It is not logical.
When something has ONE INPUT and SEVERAL OUTPUTS - it looks like RULE, but not as LOGICAL operator, or a SPLIT (for parallel execution, for instance).
So, if you still want to use something logical in non-logical way, just try to be consistent - if you do AND (one input with SEVERAL outputs) you should combine outputs by AND in logical way (MANY INPUTS and ONE OUTPUT).
So, from this point of view your ePC doesn't have logic.
