W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Why workflow is NOT just a Pi-process

From: JC Reddy <jcreddy@bpmlabs.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:22:30 -0800
To: <edwink@collaxa.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DKECLNDMLPCDENMPGCBIEEGLCJAA.jcreddy@bpmlabs.com>


Broadly speaking, that's a good description of the gap between the two camps
(Workflow and BPM). I would like to see the goals and features of both merge
into one standard to enable fast development and composition of applications
that lie within and span across the organizations.

IMO, a BPM standard should be more than a web-services orchestration and
choreography standard - it also needs to incorporate  business semantics.
This is especially true if we intend BPM standards and standard-based BPM
products to subsume the current workflow systems.

JC Reddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9:19 AM
To: jcreddy@bpmlabs.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Why workflow is NOT just a Pi-process


Sorry for intruding but I really like your terminology. I think that the gap
between the 2 camps is that:

- BPEL/BPML is not as rich model wise as the proprietary workflow languages
  (the model does not include user, access control, form, data validation,
   Organizational model, security, etc...).

- But BPEL/BPML offer a richer support for XML, a richer set of
  orchestration primitives, a more transparent interaction model and
  therefore a better composition model (star, peer-to-peer, ring, etc...).

The end result is that vendors will adopt BPEL/BPML as a foundation and
complement it with additional models to deliver a full solution of
developers and customers (Workflow, ERP, XYZ).

The key benefit of that approach is that given that the foundation in terms
data and interaction models is consistent across vertical solutions provided
by multiple vendors, the composition across those verticals is greatly
enhanced. This translates in enterprises being able to finally *easily*
customize business processes both within a solution as well as across

Finally, for us to actually deliver on this promise, we not only need
BPEL/BPML, WSDL, invocation frameworks such as WSIF and JSR 208 but also a
richer language for describing the interface of one process and mapping 2 or
more of such interfaces into peer-to-peer collaborations. This is all the
more important in the case of collaborations being designed across the
boundaries of organizations: without ws-cdl, business process integration
will stop at the boundary of an organization and enterprise will not be able
to leverage the richness of BPM across the internet.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of JC Reddy
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 6:57 AM
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why workflow is NOT just a Pi-process

>I can confirm this. The Intalio implementation of BPML/BPEL is quite
stunning in this respect.
> In fact, in many project models I have seen at CSC, many of the swimlanes
are users or imaginary
> white space processes. Change mgt processes are a great example.

Yes, you can do it, i.e., model users as processes. However, the "user"
notion is not explcit, and hence applications  will need to build the
semantics (in creating worklists, mapping to access control systems, and
such). Different vendors may support this in their own ways, but it is not
in the model.

JC Reddy
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 16:22:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC