http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/07/28/the-portability-dialogues/ Bruce Silver's blog on business process management Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:22:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/07/28/the-portability-dialogues/comment-page-1/#comment-213 BPMS Watch » Home Stretch for BPEL 2.0 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:30:53 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/07/28/the-portability-dialogues/#comment-213 [...] BPEL 2.0, the long-awaited love-child of the OASIS WS-BPEL TC, is at last in its final public comment phase.  See John Evdemon’s blog for all the links.  Sure, conventional wisdom says two years is a long time to change Switch to If-then, but if Assaf’s comments are correct, fixing BPEL 1.1’s primitive data manipulation syntax may prove to be a far more significant change.  Once the thing is finally approved we can anticipate a ripple effect on BPMSes, and a round of new questions.  Will Microsoft actually support it?  (Unlikely.)  Will there be an actual spec submitted for BPEL4People and BPEL-Subprocess? (Probably, but will anyone but IBM and SAP care?)  Will BPMN have to change to support the new BPEL?  (Bigger problems than that confront BPMN.)  Once BPEL 2.0 is approved by a vote in OASIS, I think it has 6 months to prove it was worth waiting for.  If it can’t do it, I think the energy on standardization moves to the modeling language (BPMN?) and the execution language becomes an implementation detail. [...] [...] BPEL 2.0, the long-awaited love-child of the OASIS WS-BPEL TC, is at last in its final public comment phase.  See John Evdemon’s blog for all the links.  Sure, conventional wisdom says two years is a long time to change Switch to If-then, but if Assaf’s comments are correct, fixing BPEL 1.1’s primitive data manipulation syntax may prove to be a far more significant change.  Once the thing is finally approved we can anticipate a ripple effect on BPMSes, and a round of new questions.  Will Microsoft actually support it?  (Unlikely.)  Will there be an actual spec submitted for BPEL4People and BPEL-Subprocess? (Probably, but will anyone but IBM and SAP care?)  Will BPMN have to change to support the new BPEL?  (Bigger problems than that confront BPMN.)  Once BPEL 2.0 is approved by a vote in OASIS, I think it has 6 months to prove it was worth waiting for.  If it can’t do it, I think the energy on standardization moves to the modeling language (BPMN?) and the execution language becomes an implementation detail. [...]

]]> http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/07/28/the-portability-dialogues/comment-page-1/#comment-183 BPMS Watch » On a Reference Model for BPM 2.0 Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:39:46 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/07/28/the-portability-dialogues/#comment-183 [...] For example, take BPEL 2.0.  Is portability a goal?  What about human tasks?  Subprocesses?  These are not included, just vague white papers that surfaced a full year ago with not a peep since.  BPMN devotes half the spec to BPEL mapping, but as Assaf Arkin and others have pointed out, hasn’t aligned its concepts with BPEL sufficiently to allow such a mapping unambiguously. [...] [...] For example, take BPEL 2.0.  Is portability a goal?  What about human tasks?  Subprocesses?  These are not included, just vague white papers that surfaced a full year ago with not a peep since.  BPMN devotes half the spec to BPEL mapping, but as Assaf Arkin and others have pointed out, hasn’t aligned its concepts with BPEL sufficiently to allow such a mapping unambiguously. [...]

]]>