RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?

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

Matthew,

+1,

Excellent points.  I would add that hook to visual orientated
extensions file is my personal preference, and as long as this
is stored in open XML, the format could be vendor supplied.

Also - as you note below mappings to other model systems 
is also IMHO the way to go - this will allow future extensibility,
and today cover BPMN, UML, BPSS, and vendor proprietary
models.   Sample mappings can be provided non-normative
as addendums to the main spec', or as technical notes.

DW.
=================================================
Message text written by "J. Matthew Pryor"
>To Steve's point, if you want to allow more business focused people to
use a highly productive design environment to specify business
processes, then you almost certainly need a different meta-model than
that which underlies BPEL. In this case, it would be sensible to then
develop [canonical?] mappings between the high-level notation meta-model
and the execution focused BPEL (this is what is currently being done
with BPMN for BPEL & BPML - sorry about all the acronyms). This allows
for dealing with issues such as graph oriented versus block structured
etc. I encourage people to talk with the folks who have done a lot of
excellent work on the BPMN to tap into their experience. The output of
the OMG RFP that Fred mentioned would also fill this bill.
<