Another View on BPEL4People
June 20th, 2006
Richard Brown, an IBMer from across the pond, blogged recently about BPEL4People and took issue with my contention that it was too grandiose and after-the-fact to achieve wide adoption as a standard. He tracked back to my original post in February, saying
I’m increasingly of the opinion that standardisation often occurs too soon and that major revisions are a reflection that the initial specs fail to anticipate potential problems or extended use cases. Unfortunately, if vendors choose to delay standardisation, they’re accused of being proprietary or risk finding themselves with no influence amongst those who decide to standardise earlier. When the incentives are so strongly stacked in favour of early standardisation, it’s not surprising that those who gain the most experience with a spec discover its deficiencies and seek to remedy them.
Anyway, since my original post was from February (before I even had my own blog), I’m hoping for a restart on the discussion of BPEL4People. What’s the right way to include human tasks in a BPEL process, and why?
Entry Filed under: BPM
4 Comments Add your own
1. Sandy Kemsley | June 21st, 2006 at 7:40 am
Seems to be a bit of interest in BPEL4People lately: Joe McKendrick blogged about it a few days ago, as I’m sure that you’re aware since you were quoted, and David Ogren mentioned how a customer asked if they supported it yet!
2. Derek Miers | June 22nd, 2006 at 3:08 am
Sort of goes back to why standards in the first place. On a call the other day around this BP Runtime data thing I have been working on, one of the vendors on the call pointed to the need for vendors to avoid investing in the things that the market doesnt value.
The problem as we both know is that “the market” is told what to “value” by the big name advisory firms (no name, no pack drill), who in turn are often influenced by the agenda’s of the big name technology vendors.
The reality is that most end-users who are asking for standards like BPEL (and even BPEL4People) have no idea how they would actually use these things in the real world. They just want to see it there.
3. Loosely Coupled Thinking&hellip | June 22nd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
BPM Think Tank Presentations Available…
A recap of the BPM Think Tank conference was made available earlier this month. ……
4. Gendal World&hellip | June 23rd, 2006 at 6:26 am
What’s the right way to include human tasks in a B…
Bruce Silver points to my qualified defence of BPEL4People and asks what the best way to include human tasks in a BPEL process is….
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed