[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fw: [wsbpel] Background to Workflow/Pi Paper: Response to Jon
More on this thread! Now you all know alot more than I do at this stage. I still need to find time to read the PDF and then ping Howard with some questions. DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard N Smith" <howard.smith@ontology.org> To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Jon Pyke" <jpyke@dial.pipex.com> Cc: <ghalimi@intalio.com> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:04 AM Subject: [wsbpel] Background to Workflow/Pi Paper: Response to Jon > Jon Pykr/chair WFMC said > > >For the sake of clarification Howard Smith's paper is not sent on behalf > >of the WfMC or any individual associated with the WfMC - it may be > >Howard's intention to use the paper as a discussion document at the next > >joint meeting but any inference to it being WfMC policy or agreed > >statement would be incorrect. > > Jon is correct. The paper is, as stated, a paper by Howard Smith > and Peter Fingar. It is Copyright CSC, and reflects our experience > in the field of BPR and BPM. The background to the paper is this: > > About 18 months ago, I alerted the BPMI board to the existence of the > workflow patterns work of Wil van der Aalst. Although I am far from > convinced that the patterns expressed there are complete, in the sense > of ontology, I felt they provided a useful way to evaluate BPML/BPMS > and to help bridge the gap that existed between the understanding > on the WFMC side and the BPMI side. I recommended that > companies implementing BPML to interact with Aalst. We did some > "back of the envelope work" to show the patterns could be supported, > and then approached him. He in fact had already started to look at > BPML. But something went wrong. He looked at the matter from the > perspective of comparing the tags in BPML against other XML process > languages, and also directly against the patterns. Of course, he got > the wrong result. He did not take into account the ability of BPMS- > based technologies, based on the Pi-C, to combine processes, > for example, modeling a workflow "activity" as a process. We tried > to explain this, but he went ahead and published. Since the answer > was wrong, and people could draw wrong conclusions, we had to do > some more work ourselves to prove the patterns could be implemented. > We could have just refuted Aalst's work, but that would not be credible. > So, we spent a lot of time and modelled all the patterns, in fact more > than this, we modelled them to the extent of being reusable executable > processes. We went further, and showed how a complete workflow > engine could exist "inside the BPMS", and expressed only by BPML. > > It is this work that the paper reports on. > > Of course, we would have preferred an indepedent expert, like Aalst > to show this, but in the end we had to do it ourselves. > > In parallel with this, we were also in discussion with WfMC and Jon. > Joint work was being proposed between WFMC and BPMI. One item > was to look closely at XPDL and understand the semantics to the extent > that it could be expressed in BPML, or whether there were contructs > in XPDL which required extensions to BPML. The status of this work > will be discussed in Orlando next week. I don't want to pre-judge. > In any case, the bottom line is, CSC is finding BPMS to be very > useful as a POA over a SOA and the comments in the paper stand. > > The whole idea of the paper was to announce some results, further > explain BPMI.org's direction, and enhance understanding of how > BPML technologies can be used to do things never before possible. > Experience with BPMS as it goes forward will provide more insights > over time. It is a CSC paper, not a WFMC or BPMI paper. But of > course, Ismael and I fully support what the paper says, from a BPMI.org > viewpoint. From the reaction we are getting to the paper it is helping > others understand. > > btw - we are open to receive comments and to work towards further > papers to explain this breakthrough, which began with the co-founding > group in 1999. > > Howard > > At 04:41 PM 11/12/2003 +0000, Jon Pyke wrote: > >For the sake of clarification Howard Smith's paper is not sent on behalf > >of the WfMC or any individual associated with the WfMC - it may be > >Howard's intention to use the paper as a discussion document at the next > >joint meeting but any inference to it being WfMC policy or agreed > >statement would be incorrect. > > > >Regards > > > >Jon Pyke > >Chair WfMC > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org] > >Sent: 12 November 2003 14:13 > >To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: [wsbpel] v2.1 - Workflow is just a Pi process - new paper from > >CSC, as PDF download > > > > > >fyi > > > >http://www.bpm3.com/picalculus/workflow-is-just-a-pi-process.pdf > > > >This paper provides an update on the unification of WFM and BPM. It was > >written to provide > >enhanced understanding between the WFMC and BPMI community and may also > >be helpful to > >members of BPEL TC at OASIS. It shows how workflow patterns can be > >modelled using BPML > >and how BPMS can use BPML to implement workflow semantics. As such, it > >illustrates aspects > >roadmap towards BPMS and the "use cases" for BPEL. > > > >Abstract: There is much talk today about a business process management > >(BPM) rEvolution. > >The revolutionary part is about a new category of software known as the > >business process > >management system (BPMS). The evolutionary part is about using the BPMS > >to exploit existing > >business and technology assets in a way that creates new value. Along > >with any revolution > >comes confusion. What exactly is BPM? Isn't it just workflow technology, > >which has been in > >use for twenty years, plus Web services? Why don't we describe what is > >going on today as > >the "new workflow rEvolution," a subtle extension of workflow systems? > >To answer these > >questions, we explore the foundations of the workflow paradigm, and > >describe the paradigm > >shift in technology that is needed to overcome limitations of workflow > >systems to build and > >deploy robust business process management systemsthe kind of information > >systems that > >businesses now demand as new sources of competitive advantage in an ever > >more uncertain > >and complex global economy. > > > >Feedback welcome. > > > >Regards, > > > >Howard Smith > >CSC/BPMI > > > > > >cell +44 7711 594 494 (worldwide) > >home office +44 20 8660 1963 > > > > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of > >the OASIS TC), go to > >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr > >oup.php. > > --- > > 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 > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]