What If BPMN Were a Modeling Language?
Blog: Method & Style (Bruce Silver)
[My new column on BPMInstitute.org]
Lacking support for fundamental concepts like human tasks and subprocesses, BPEL has become a favorite whipping boy of BPM vendors and consultants. But for all its faults, BPEL enjoys something that BPMN advocates can only dream about: an XML storage and interchange format that makes sense. It?s often said that BPEL is an XML language not a graphical notation, but the reality is that graphical BPEL design tools all use more or less the same notation, based on a simple mapping to native BPEL language constructs: Receive, Reply, Invoke, etc. BPMN has a standard notation, but still lacks a standard storage and interchange format consistent with the fundamental goals of BPMN itself.
I?ve been thinking about this recently with the announcement from OMG that the ?official? XML format for BPMN, based on OMG?s new Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM), is in its final stages of ratification. Besides BPDM, Intalio has developed an alternative XML format for BPMN and has contributed it to the Eclipse Foundation. And let?s not forget XPDL 2.0, the Workflow Management Coalition?s reworking of its old process interchange warhorse to encompass various pieces of the BPMN spec. But to me, none of these proposals is as satisfying as BPEL?s approach, which makes the XML format closely match the terminology and semantics of the process constructs, their target audience, and business purpose.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
