Comments on: 5 Things to Love About BPMN 2.0

By: TecNews: Noticias Tecnofagia

TecNews: Noticias Tecnofagia — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:04:34 +0000

[...] dos padrões também.Timeline de padrõesVocê pode conferir boas dicas do que vai ter de novo no bpmn aqui. Porém, existem algumas coisas ruins sobre o assunto, como por exemplo a possível continuidade da [...]

By: BPM sem BPEL « Training Tecnologia

BPM sem BPEL « Training Tecnologia — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:59:24 +0000

[...] de padrões Você pode conferir boas dicas do que vai ter de novo no bpmn aqui. Porém, existem algumas coisas ruins sobre o assunto, como por exemplo a possível continuidade da [...]

By: tser04

tser04 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:45:02 +0000

What about serialization of BPMN2.0? The link between BPMN and XPDL until now has been that XPDL was representing the BPMN process diagram in xml code. Now apperantly being an executable language, is BPMN2.0 stored as xml code?

Please forgive me if i’m not too well wandered in this BPM standards jungle.

By: bruce

bruce — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:02:18 +0000

Yes, there is XPDL, and I have written extensively about WfMC’s efforts on behalf of BPMN portability. (They seem to care about it more than OMG does.) But XPDL is, after all, a “borrowed” schema. It is not part of the BPMN standard and is frequently derided by many in OMG. The XPDL schema has many elements not used by BPMN, stuffs BPMN elements into existing XPDL ones where they do exist, and adds new ones to make up for the difference. But I agree it “works” for the diagram-related information in BPMN 1.x, for tool vendors that elect to support it.

We need more. We need an officially sanctioned schema that is part of the BPMN specification, that uses BPMN-specific elements in its metamodel. And going forward, one that supports BPMN’s execution-related elements and attributes that are not visible in the diagram. BPMN 2.0 provides all that.

Having said that, I think XPDL will continue to play a role in real-world BPMN interchange, even once BPMN 2.0 ships, simply because WfMC understands better than OMG the issues involved in porting a process model from tool A to tool B, and cares more about it.

By: Pvanerk

Pvanerk — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:39:59 +0000

Like you I am really looking forward to the actual BPMN 2.0 implementations. Still, I have a question I would like to ask you.

You said there is no XML-interchange format for BPMN. So, what about XPDL (XML Process Definition Language – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X....._Language). This format was defined by the Workflow Management Coalition in order to store BPMN-flows in an XML-format. A lot of BPMN-modelers have the opportunity to import or export to XPDL, so interchanging between tools shouldn’t be a problem.

With regards,

Paul van Erk
The Process Wiki – your place for business processes