Additional BPEL documentation/notation tags (was: A Topic for the F2F?)

["Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>]

Hello,

I was looking into experinces with BPMN, and found this:

From: J. Matthew Pryor [mailto:matthew_pryor@versata.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?
>...
>If on the other hand, if what you want is a standardized way to
>represent the actual BPEL meta-model, then yes there is almost certainly
>other information that will be needed (text annotations, icons, position
>information) and there is possibly some value in standardizing this;
>...

This is especially needed for the Abstract Process. Because BPEL files for the abstract process are especially important for exchanging between business partners and have to be vendor neutral. If simple stuff like (multi languag) documentation cannot be added, BPEL fails to document the model.

Currently I am working on a BPSS/BPEL-Abstract Integration, since BPSS is much better in documenting message exchnage, which is more common for B2B messaging, than for function style web service orchestration.

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
Chief Architect, SEEBURGER AG - http://www.seeburger.com