- From: Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:14:23 +0000
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
I dont think BPML is yet another choreography specification because I think the authors have tried to learn from the theoretical work of others, including the pi-c. I agree completely with Bill Flood of Sybase that: >The WS-Chor, in my belief, will only be successful if it takes the high road - a defensible position that >avoids pitting one vendor approach against another (or for that matter one standards organization against >another). That's precisely what bpmi has been trying to do since its inception and indeed beforehand. Indeed, it was part of the charter to root the work in theory. After all, which CIO is going to trust a BPMS without such foundations. Now bpmi is reaching back out to the academic community to get more validation. The success of BPM rests on getting it right, and from initial practical results in CSC we have a strong suspicion BPML is on the right lines. Precisely the same happened with data management and the relational algebra. The relational model would have failed without such formalism. The relationship of BPML to pi-c seems to be as follows. pi-c takes as it's first class citizen the process, by focusing upon concurrent computation and communication as a primitive. BPML does the same. Pi-C represents 20 years of computer science, to identify the small(est) set of primitives from which all possible processes can be expressed, including computational processes. CF Physics elementary particles. The primitives in the pi-c appear in BPML. The body of work on pi-c, notably Milner's book and Sangiorgi's book, are the equivalent of Physics' GUT ... and using that body of work we can show the power of the primitives, and therefore the power of BPML. PI-C processes have some very important properties for processes that are meant to represent business processes. Business processes have many of the attributes Milner identified under the title "mobility". For example: - the ability for processes to appear as participants in other processes - the ability to use process idioms, named patterns, within other conversations - the ability for processes to govern the lifecycle of other processes - the ability for processes to provide patterns of behavior to which other processes can adhere All these crop up in business modeling all the time. Asaaf, when could the document you allude to be made available here? That way we get more on the table and more examination of the design? Howard Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org/bpm3.com
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 16:29:59 UTC