- From: Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:24:19 +0000
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
JC R said: >I agree on the BPM space requiring a stack of specifications, and that's how it will most likely evolve over time. >Obviously both the "new" BPM and the "traditional" workflow camps have a lot to contribute to these efforts. >Going back to the original discussion on whether workflow is just a Pi-process, let me pose some questions here. >(1) If we develop a language purely based on Pi-C and nothing more, will it offer all necessary constructs (at an >acceptable high level) to model, execute and reason about workflows? No one is asking anyone to base technology just on a theory like pi-c. I've explained the background to the paper before. > (2) Now let us ask the same question about BPML (which is more than Pi-C). The answer depends on one's >definition of workflow and where one is looking at it from - from 100,000 ft, 10,000 ft or from inside. To me, >it is pretty much a useless assertion, although I do appreciate what Pi-C brings to the BPM table. BPML is, funnily enough, also less than pi-c, in the sense that no one would put BPML forward as a universal theory of all processes, but that is precisely what pi-c is. Funny old world, isnt it. H --- New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave www.bpm3.com Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK) office +44 20 8660 1963
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 08:30:28 UTC