Comments on: The Real Issues with XPDL, BPEL, and BPMN http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/ 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 By: BPMN/XPDL Execution in Papyrus « Papyrus Platform Architecture http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-7070 BPMN/XPDL Execution in Papyrus « Papyrus Platform Architecture Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:24:34 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-7070 [...] I am not the only to criticize, you can read here in The Real Issues with XPDL, BPEL, and BPMN where Bruce Silver explains the issues with poortability that I have also covered. Keith Swenson [...] [...] I am not the only to criticize, you can read here in The Real Issues with XPDL, BPEL, and BPMN where Bruce Silver explains the issues with poortability that I have also covered. Keith Swenson [...]

]]> By: IT|Redux http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-1144 IT|Redux Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:47:06 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-1144 <strong>Get Your BPMN Schema Today...</strong> In a recent article published by Intelligent Enterprise, my friend Bruce Silver laments that BPDM is essentially useless, and that the BPM industry badly needs an XML schema for BPMN. I could not agree more with him, and I am happy to report that Intal... Get Your BPMN Schema Today…

In a recent article published by Intelligent Enterprise, my friend Bruce Silver laments that BPDM is essentially useless, and that the BPM industry badly needs an XML schema for BPMN. I could not agree more with him, and I am happy to report that Intal…

]]> By: ghalimi http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-1141 ghalimi Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:57:45 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-1141 Bruce, How about you take a look at the BPMN Schema developed by Intalio and contributed to the Eclipse Foundation? It is available at the following URL: http://www.eclipse.org/stp/bpmn/model/index.php Also, it is fully supported by the Open Source BPMN modeler we have donated to Eclipse, as well as by the Intalio|Designer process designer. Best regards -Ismael Bruce,

How about you take a look at the BPMN Schema developed by Intalio and contributed to the Eclipse Foundation? It is available at the following URL:

http://www.eclipse.org/stp/bpmn/model/index.php

Also, it is fully supported by the Open Source BPMN modeler we have donated to Eclipse, as well as by the Intalio|Designer process designer.

Best regards
-Ismael

]]> By: BPMS Watch » Diagrams, Models, and Metamodels…Oh My! http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-693 BPMS Watch » Diagrams, Models, and Metamodels…Oh My! Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:37:38 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-693 [...] My comment on Keith Swenson’s XPDL-BPEL apples-and-oranges post and the failure of XPDL to fill the vacuum left by OMG in the BPMN specification stirred up an interesting response from Keith that reinvigorates the discussion and helps clear the air.  But he still frames the discussion in terms of portability of executable designs rather than portability of models (i.e. abstracted from implementation details).  In the XPDL vs BPEL discussion, this is appropriate, but in the discussion of BPMN portability it misses a fundamental point. [...] [...] My comment on Keith Swenson’s XPDL-BPEL apples-and-oranges post and the failure of XPDL to fill the vacuum left by OMG in the BPMN specification stirred up an interesting response from Keith that reinvigorates the discussion and helps clear the air.  But he still frames the discussion in terms of portability of executable designs rather than portability of models (i.e. abstracted from implementation details).  In the XPDL vs BPEL discussion, this is appropriate, but in the discussion of BPMN portability it misses a fundamental point. [...]

]]> By: kswenson http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-692 kswenson Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:15:50 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-692 Comment #9 from Marlon: yes you are absolutely right, I chose a process which can successfully be translated to BPEL because it maps to a block structured implementation. Naturally, there are many BPMN drawings that do not map so well. Comment #9 from cm119: We have discussed an "XPIL" for XML Process Instance Language, which would be process definition along with instance information, but there is nothing past an early proposal on this. I believe what is needed is an "monitoring event" definition which would allow any process engine to send events in a standard to a Process Intelligence product. Comment #9 from Marlon: yes you are absolutely right, I chose a process which can successfully be translated to BPEL because it maps to a block structured implementation. Naturally, there are many BPMN drawings that do not map so well.

Comment #9 from cm119: We have discussed an “XPIL” for XML Process Instance Language, which would be process definition along with instance information, but there is nothing past an early proposal on this. I believe what is needed is an “monitoring event” definition which would allow any process engine to send events in a standard to a Process Intelligence product.

]]> By: The Diagram IS the Meaning « Go Flow http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-684 The Diagram IS the Meaning « Go Flow Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:26:43 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-684 [...] The Diagram IS the Meaning Posted March 25, 2007 Bruce Silver put together a summary of The Real Issues with XPDL, BPEL, and BPMN where he explained better than I could that the aspect of portability that is more valuable depends on what you’re trying to do. He correctly points out that “XPDL captures the diagram, while BPEL captures the process semantics.” [...] [...] The Diagram IS the Meaning Posted March 25, 2007 Bruce Silver put together a summary of The Real Issues with XPDL, BPEL, and BPMN where he explained better than I could that the aspect of portability that is more valuable depends on what you’re trying to do. He correctly points out that “XPDL captures the diagram, while BPEL captures the process semantics.” [...]

]]> By: bruce http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-660 bruce Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:17:37 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-660 cm119, Not sure what you're asking. All BPMSs can track and monitor instances, and many of them can display that information layered on the process diagram. But each in its own proprietary way. If you're asking about standards for this, there is an effort in OMG called BPRI (runtime interface) -- or that's what it was called when it started -- that is trying to standardize access to runtime information. Not sure of its current status. cm119,
Not sure what you’re asking. All BPMSs can track and monitor instances, and many of them can display that information layered on the process diagram. But each in its own proprietary way. If you’re asking about standards for this, there is an effort in OMG called BPRI (runtime interface) — or that’s what it was called when it started — that is trying to standardize access to runtime information. Not sure of its current status.

]]> By: bruce http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-659 bruce Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:12:49 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-659 Marlon, Thanks for your perceptive comment on a subtle aspect of BPMN. In my BPMN training, when I talk about using BPMN at Level 3 (executable design), I point out that the diagram may be further restricted by constraints of the underlying execution engine, e.g. as you say, block-structured languages like BPEL require parallel splits, event gateways, etc to rejoin, where plain BPMN does not. This is a fact of life, and we're grateful to guys like you and eClarus for making the best of it. But the key message in your comment, and in Keith's fragment as well, is that BPMN itself needs to get better, in many ways -- more complete as a modeling standard, more business-friendly, and probably better in the choreography notation as well. When BPDM comes out -- next week, I hear -- I think there will be great relief that the metamodel and serialization is finally done, followed by loud grieving and gnashing of teeth once folks have a look at the spec. Those who remember that BPMN began as an antidote to UML will be left wondering what happened. But let's let that process unfold to see what comes next. Clearly OMG is trying to make BPMN more architect-friendly than business-friendly, and I doubt that BPDM will be the last word on where BPMN goes from here. Marlon,

Thanks for your perceptive comment on a subtle aspect of BPMN. In my BPMN training, when I talk about using BPMN at Level 3 (executable design), I point out that the diagram may be further restricted by constraints of the underlying execution engine, e.g. as you say, block-structured languages like BPEL require parallel splits, event gateways, etc to rejoin, where plain BPMN does not. This is a fact of life, and we’re grateful to guys like you and eClarus for making the best of it.

But the key message in your comment, and in Keith’s fragment as well, is that BPMN itself needs to get better, in many ways — more complete as a modeling standard, more business-friendly, and probably better in the choreography notation as well.

When BPDM comes out — next week, I hear — I think there will be great relief that the metamodel and serialization is finally done, followed by loud grieving and gnashing of teeth once folks have a look at the spec. Those who remember that BPMN began as an antidote to UML will be left wondering what happened. But let’s let that process unfold to see what comes next. Clearly OMG is trying to make BPMN more architect-friendly than business-friendly, and I doubt that BPDM will be the last word on where BPMN goes from here.

]]> By: cm119 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-657 cm119 Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:58:03 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-657 I came across Keith's and Bruce's Blogs recently and read them with great interest. I have a question when researching the field. Is it possible to record a process definition, along with information about its instantiation (for one instance/enactment) and states, so that the various presentation tools and monitoring tools can use it as well as the engines. Am I completely off the track? I came across Keith’s and Bruce’s Blogs recently and read them with great interest. I have a question when researching the field. Is it possible to record a process definition, along with information about its instantiation (for one instance/enactment) and states, so that the various presentation tools and monitoring tools can use it as well as the engines. Am I completely off the track?

]]> By: marlon_dumas http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/comment-page-1/#comment-653 marlon_dumas Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:43:31 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/03/21/the-real-issues-with-xpdl-bpel-and-bpmn/#comment-653 I would like to add that the very simple example used by Keith to illustrate his point is not a good one as it hides a key difference between BPMN (or XPDL for that matter) and BPEL. It is an example of a perfectly structured process model. Structured process models can be translated easily from BPMN (or XPDL) into BPEL, and we can even do round-tripping with this class of models. For such structured models, BPMN can be seen as a "skin" on top of BPEL. However, this is a very specific case and people who deal with domain analysts know that they very often do not write structured process models. And if you try to explain them that their models should be block-structured because it's easier for your tool to execute them, they will simply throw you and your tool out and go back to doing IDEF or EPCs like they did in the old days. If you want to engage with domain analysts, and you’re serious about business-IT alignment, you have to given them the freedom, among others, of writing their favourite unstructured models. You should then provide methods and tools so that system architects, designers and developers can turn these models into implementations, for example in BPEL, WWF, YAWL, etc. On the other hand, if XPDL is positioned as an XML serialisation of BPMN, whatever leading edge it may have at present, will probably not last long. Even if vendors started adding XPDL import/export functions into their BPMN tools, it would be easy for these same vendors to also offer BPDM-XMI import/export whenever OMG decides to catch up. As for the fact that XMI serialisations are horrible, it seems that tool vendors have become used to this fact and they have learned to live with it. But perhaps rather than discussing BPMN vs BPDM vs XPDL vs BPEL, shouldn't we be discussing how to bring BPMN closer to the needs of business process modellers? How to capture richer representations of resources (e.g. people, equipment, systems, materials), how to capture richer representations of context and non-functional properties (e.g. time, cost, risks)? I see a lot of analysts coming from using EPCs, and being disappointed by how poorly BPMN captures these non-functional aspects, which to them is more than half of the story that a process model should tell. I would like to add that the very simple example used by Keith to illustrate his point is not a good one as it hides a key difference between BPMN (or XPDL for that matter) and BPEL. It is an example of a perfectly structured process model. Structured process models can be translated easily from BPMN (or XPDL) into BPEL, and we can even do round-tripping with this class of models. For such structured models, BPMN can be seen as a “skin” on top of BPEL.
However, this is a very specific case and people who deal with domain analysts know that they very often do not write structured process models. And if you try to explain them that their models should be block-structured because it’s easier for your tool to execute them, they will simply throw you and your tool out and go back to doing IDEF or EPCs like they did in the old days. If you want to engage with domain analysts, and you’re serious about business-IT alignment, you have to given them the freedom, among others, of writing their favourite unstructured models. You should then provide methods and tools so that system architects, designers and developers can turn these models into implementations, for example in BPEL, WWF, YAWL, etc.
On the other hand, if XPDL is positioned as an XML serialisation of BPMN, whatever leading edge it may have at present, will probably not last long. Even if vendors started adding XPDL import/export functions into their BPMN tools, it would be easy for these same vendors to also offer BPDM-XMI import/export whenever OMG decides to catch up. As for the fact that XMI serialisations are horrible, it seems that tool vendors have become used to this fact and they have learned to live with it.
But perhaps rather than discussing BPMN vs BPDM vs XPDL vs BPEL, shouldn’t we be discussing how to bring BPMN closer to the needs of business process modellers? How to capture richer representations of resources (e.g. people, equipment, systems, materials), how to capture richer representations of context and non-functional properties (e.g. time, cost, risks)? I see a lot of analysts coming from using EPCs, and being disappointed by how poorly BPMN captures these non-functional aspects, which to them is more than half of the story that a process model should tell.

]]>