Comments on: BPMN Tool Interoperability – Make Your Voice Heard!

By: On IT-business alignment and related things » BPMN 2.0: is it really “not for the business”?

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:03:07 +0000

[...] adoption by tools vendors, consultants and trainers of a set of BPMN conformance classes (Bruce Silver has some good analysis of these) that were introduced at the late stage of 2.0 standardisation. So [...]

By: The Case for Conformance « BPM News

The Case for Conformance « BPM News — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:16:10 +0000

[...] with a tool supporting the same conformance class. Bruce Silver has spelled this problem out in a recent blog post and I couldn’t agree more with his sentiment. The BPMN 2.0 Finalization Task Force needs to [...]

By: Is BPM Dead? « Thoughts on Collaborative Planning

Is BPM Dead? « Thoughts on Collaborative Planning — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:43:02 +0000

[...] people don’t need that complexity. Some, like Bruce Silver and Robert Shapiro are trying to rescue the situation, but the mere fact that committee has to argue over this case tells me that BPMN 2.0 is being taken [...]

By: BPMN Quotes of the week « Adam Deane

BPMN Quotes of the week « Adam Deane — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 06:10:55 +0000

[...] On BPMN ? Bruce Silver The problem is that BPMN 2.0 is a massive spec, and it?s no longer just about the diagram shapes a… [...]

By: Process for the Enterprise » Blog Archive » BPMN 2.0 Interoperability at Risk

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:54:09 +0000

[...] Bruce Silver writes: I failed, but Robert Shapiro has carried that effort forward in the Finalization Task Force phase, and today he succeeded in getting it on the ballot. You can see the proposal here. What that means is that in a few days, FTF members will vote to either approve the inclusion of these process modeling conformance classes in the final specification, or not. There is still some opposition to the idea, mostly from vendors who may not be able to claim conformance with all of the classes in their first BPMN 2.0 release. So there is a chance, maybe a good chance, that this will not pass. [...]

By: The word for 3/31 is “adaptive” « Thoughts on Collaborative Planning

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:20:00 +0000

[...] 8. BPMN Tool Interoperability ? Make Your Voice Heard! [...]

By: Sandy Kemsley

Sandy Kemsley — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:44:30 +0000

Keith, I'm not sure that removing the simple class is so bad: it was almost too simple, and didn't include some elements that are likely understandable to most business people, such as swimlanes, and some things that make the models much more useful, such as basic message and timer events. I find it hard to believe that any tool vendor would have implemented only the simple subclass, but most would have gone for the descriptive class in any case. As you might guess from my post on the BPMN update from last month, I'm glad to see the DoDAF subclass renamed to something that is more meaningful to the rest of us.

By: Column 2 : links for 2010-03-30

Column 2 : links for 2010-03-30 — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:03:07 +0000

[...] BPMN Tool Interoperability ? Make Your Voice Heard! « BPMS Watch Why it's important to support the BPMN2.0 Process Modeling Conformance Class proposal by lobbying the vendors involved in the vote. Otherwise, all that interoperability that you think is coming with BPMN 2.0 might not actually be there. (tags: bpmn) Posted by Sandy Kemsley on Tuesday, March 30, 2010, at 8:02 am. Filed under Links. Follow any responses to this post with its comments RSS feed. You can post a comment or trackback from your blog. [...]

By: Will die OMG keine Business-Modellierer? - Kurze Prozesse

Will die OMG keine Business-Modellierer? - Kurze Prozesse — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:36:49 +0000

[...] Silver macht sich in seinem Blog Sorgen um die BPMN 2.0. Der BPMN-Spezifikationsentwurf sieht verschiedene Konformitätsklassen für Modellierungstools [...]

By: kswenson

kswenson — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:31:35 +0000

Conformance classes are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to the adoption of the spec. The good work that you and Robert Shapiro have done leading this has been a great service to the BPM community.

I understand today a straw poll was held, and a decisions to drop SIMPLE from the conformance classes. That is too bad. The original design of BPMN (from the BPMI days) was a notation can could be used in a variety of different specific languages. It is too bad that the OMG only sees modeling for BPEL as the purpose of BPMN. The purposeful exclusion of all other uses of BPMN is not doing them any good. They are going to lose a lot of support.

It is entirely possible the BPMN will go the same way that CORBA did. We will just have to see.