RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Contrary-wise - one could argue that for BPEL to succeed - it will
make managing such complex interactions simple by providing
components that manage those complexities and limit them,
so that average mortals can quickly and easily construct 
robust and replicatable systems - reliably - without regard to
what vendor is behind the BPEL they have written.....

And I agree - that we do not need to solve vendors problems
for them.  Visual representations - while stimulating intellectually - 
are probably a bottomless ocean depth to be plumbed.   I'd
much rather have clear simple components and behaviours,
and let other people build sets of pictures - that allow end
users to manipulate and express those.

DW.
==================================================

Message text written by "Maciej Szefler"
> 
If the promise of BPEL is to be fulfilled it is to be expected that process
descriptions will grow to be quite complicated, on par with what can
currently be seen in traditional workflow implementations. I would imagine
that one point of differentiation among vendors of BPEL technology would be
in the area of presentation and constructions of such process descriptions.
Perhaps it would be wise to include a completely opaque vendor extension
area in the process descriptor for whatever visual annotation the vendor
requires, rather than developing specific visual annotations.
 
Maciej Szefler 
Vice President - Product Development <