RE: [regrep] [Fwd: Re: [ebXMLRegRepSWG] Registers and RegisterItems]

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Farrukh,

 

Yes I've been consumed by project work this week - big presentation today.

 

KSwenson at us . fujitsu . com

 

I think we are agreeing here on what is needed. 

 

I was looking to existing open source XPDL processors to provide guidance as well.

 

Thanks, DW

 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Fwd: Re: [ebXMLRegRepSWG] Registers and
RegisterItems]
From: Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 12:08 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: ebXML Regrep <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>


We missed you at RegRep TC meeting David. More inline below...

David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> Farrukh,
>
> I suggest asking Keith Swenson at Fujitsu. He is the co-chair and
> editor for the latest XPDL v2 specification work.

Thanks. Can you send me his email please.

>
> He should be able to assist with this. My vision was to use any COTS
> tool for BPMN - and have it generate XPDL.
>
> Simpler is better. I don't think we need to wrap ourselves around a
> pole on this.

It not enough to be be able to express a business process in XPDL. If we
adopt it then ebXML RegRep implementations will have to be able to
process the XPDL and implement/orchestrate the specified business
processes. That is a fair degree of implementation complexity to add and
we need to do it with due consideration.

Again we did discuss this topic in the meeting today and talked about
possibly deferring full-blown process configurability and instead do
some simpler "middle ground". The first step is to identify some
concrete use cases for what needs to be configurable beyond the default
registration prcedures we have discussed so far.

>
> Simply state that for our purposes a core subset of BPMN/XPDL is
> sufficient and that is what we will move out with for V4 - and then
> review further features in future as needed.
>
> So what we would look for is a minimum compliance specification - or
> annotations in the existing spec' that denote that - to provide a base
> implementation.
>
> There are well over 100 tools supporting BPMN v1 and v2 now. For our
> purposes basic features in BPMN should b enough. Maybe point out one
> or two extended features if we see specific need for registry
> operation - but otherwise that should be OK. I've seen whole process
> workflows end-to-end drawn in BPMN - so this should be possible for us
> here without trying to make this more complex than it needs to be.
--
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com