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

Re: Why workflow is NOT just a Pi-process

From: Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:16:05 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20031208131403.07099fe8@pop3.demon.co.uk>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org

Robert said:

.>I am an old ERP programmer, feature designer and user. I would be very interested in seeing that model, but remain a little skeptical. 
>Professor William McCarthy's students mapped his one-page REA (Resource-Event-Agent) ontology to some commercial ERP systems and 
>found something like 80% coverage. But that's a business-semantic model and the remaining 20% contains the usual deep ratholes. So if you 
>mean something like "use UML to model ERP" or "use Java to model ERP", that's one thing. If you mean "use BPML to model ERP and you're 
>done, you now have a fully-functional ERP system", it's something else again.

What I mean is, there is nothing in ERP that I cannot model in BPML or BPEL. And, most significantly, when I do this, I am still in the domain
of processes and process lifecycle, ie, there is no bottom, when the engine takes over and I cannot change the behaviour. This is what we
mean by a native process platform. 

howard


---

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 08:30:14 UTC

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