Re: OMG's RFP for Business Process Definition Metamodel

I see. I went by the date on the RFP doc. I guess we should still 
evaluate what that means for us ..

Regards, Prasad

Martin Chapman wrote:

> Prasad,
>  
> This RFP has not been formally issued yet. The OMG are meeting this 
> week, and it may get issued on Friday.
>  
> Martin.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
>     Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:23 PM
>     To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>     Subject: OMG's RFP for Business Process Definition Metamodel
>
>     OMG issued an RFP earlier this month for development of a
>     specification for a business process definition metamodel.
>
>     See: http://cgi.omg.org/docs/bei/03-01-03.pdf
>
>     The specification developed in response to this RFP is expected to
>     achieve the following:
>
>        1. A common metamodel to unify the diverse business process
>           definition notations that exist in the industry
>        2. A metamodel that complements existing UML metamodels so that
>           business processes specifications can be part of complete
>           system specifications to assure consistency and completeness
>        3. The ability to integrate process models for workflow
>           management processes, automated business processes, and
>           collaborations between business units.
>        4. Support for the specification of  web services choreography,
>           describing the collaboration between participating entities
>           and the ability to reconcile the choreography with
>           supporting internal business processes.
>        5. The ability to exchange business process specifications
>           between modeling tools, and between tools and execution
>           environments using XMI.
>
>     Items in 1 and 4 above should be of considerable interest to this
>     group. Seems there is a significant functional overlap with what
>     this team is embarking on.
>
>     Comments?
>
>     Regards, Prasad
>