[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?
Considerable time has been spent on this subject at many BPMI meetings In my mind, it boils down to a discussion of whether or not you need a different meta-model to support the kind of modeling you *want* to support. To Steve's point, if you want to allow more business focused people to use a highly productive design environment to specify business processes, then you almost certainly need a different meta-model than that which underlies BPEL. In this case, it would be sensible to then develop [canonical?] mappings between the high-level notation meta-model and the execution focused BPEL (this is what is currently being done with BPMN for BPEL & BPML - sorry about all the acronyms). This allows for dealing with issues such as graph oriented versus block structured etc. I encourage people to talk with the folks who have done a lot of excellent work on the BPMN to tap into their experience. The output of the OMG RFP that Fred mentioned would also fill this bill. If on the other hand, if what you want is a standardized way to represent the actual BPEL meta-model, then yes there is almost certainly other information that will be needed (text annotations, icons, position information) and there is possibly some value in standardizing this; there will be valid arguments for and against storing this additional, visually oriented information inside a BPEL file or as an external document that references the BPEL. This could also be left to vendors to implements, especially if there is a simple extension mechanism for adding tools specific data into a BPEL file. Perhaps these thoughts will help focus discussion about which if any of these issues might be addressed in this TC. Matthew
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]