Comments on: Model Portability in BPMN 2.0

By: Will BPMN 2.0 have “Model Portability”? « Go Flow

Will BPMN 2.0 have “Model Portability”? « Go Flow — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:38:09 +0000

[...] Silver asked the question, “What do you really need for model portability?” He points to four key [...]

By: links for 2008-09-25 « steinarcarlsen

links for 2008-09-25 « steinarcarlsen — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:22:00 +0000

[...] Model Portability in BPMN 2.0 – BPMS Watch (tags: bpmn bpmn2.0) [...]

By: bruce

bruce — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:59:09 +0000

Honestly, Phil, I did not expect we would have different perspectives on the need for model portability. And I don’t recall saying anything about human-readable XML in this piece, either. I do have a preference for XML based on schemas and that works with regular XML tools, which would favor the IBM submission over BPDM. Not sure what you mean by XML is the MS-DOS of whatever, Is the issue that it has tags and is “unfriendly” to view in text format? I guess then HTML is the MS-DOS of the web.

By: Phil Gilbert

Phil Gilbert — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:20:56 +0000

Hi Bruce,

Good piece although, as you might expect, we have different perspectives on the requirements. There is no need for “human readable XML” which, in any human-friendly world is an oxymoron. What is required are, certainly, your #1 and #2 above, at a minimum. Even the specification’s statement that you quote puts the human in the graphical notation… not the XML.

We need to develop BPMN tools that are so good (and so interoperable, with deterministic interpretation of the diagrams) that humans-reading-XML isn’t required. That’s a BPEL-like answer… we need to move forward in the power of graphical interfaces. XML is the MS-DOS of model-driven computing.

Phil

ps – of course, there is disagreement on this within the BPMN spec-writing community at large. Some vendors are quite happy to require that BPMS users be able to read XML. I disagree. We have the capability to make the notation rich enough… why don’t we focus on that? Could it be that there’s corporate strategy involved… http://blog.lombardicto.com/20.....til-y.html

By: Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : Bookmarks for September 22nd

Column 2 by Sandy Kemsley : Bookmarks for September 22nd — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:02:24 +0000

[...] Model Portability in BPMN 2.0 – BPMS Watch – Bruce Silver's continuing commentary on the new BPMN 2.0 submission. Today: how portable are these models, anyway? [...]

By: frenchdk

frenchdk — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:55:36 +0000

Great thoughts as always, Bruce.
Unfortunately BPMN will take some time to get to the specification standard of an old language like FORTRAN but we can at least divide the tool builders into two camps … those that care about compliance with the spec and portability and those that are simply ticking boxes on a tool purchaser’s RFP. Even if the spec does not enumerate the rules, a tool builder can produce an explicit compliance list and over a few iterations of a few tools we (as users) might see a composite set of rules. Perhaps at BPMN 2.1 that composite set will be an annex to the spec.