<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On BPMN Portability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/07/30/on-bpmn-portability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/07/30/on-bpmn-portability/</link>
	<description>Bruce Silver's blog on business process management</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/07/30/on-bpmn-portability/#comment-2129</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2007/07/30/on-bpmn-portability/#comment-2129</guid>
		<description>I think ultimately there needs to be a modelling notation (be it BPMN or not) which has both portable serialised format and an execution semantics that allows different implementation (same meaning) according to the engine that runs the models.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think ultimately there needs to be a modelling notation (be it BPMN or not) which has both portable serialised format and an execution semantics that allows different implementation (same meaning) according to the engine that runs the models.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
