RE: [wsbpel] Gotos Considered Harmful?

["Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>]

OMG has two specification efforts under way that are
relevant to this discussion:

1) A model transformation language specification based on
the OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF).  This would provide for
specification of transformation of any model compatible with 
the OMG MOF meta modeling language.  This specification
has considerable participation with 7 or 8 initial
proposals.  This diversity should be resolved in the
months ahead.

2) A Business Process Definiition Metamodel based on UML
that would provide a business process modeling abstraction
to be mapped to different business process specification
languages.  This activity will receive initial proposals
in September.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:27 PM
> To: Carpenter, Robert E
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Gotos Considered Harmful?
> 
> 
>     I believe the assertion being made is that an analyst 
> will create an 
> incomplete BPEL model, but nonetheless a model that obeys BPEL's 
> structural rules (i.e., no cycles!). The "translation" done by the 
> technical modeller is simply a matter of providing the 
> missing detail, 
> needed to create an executable process model. (Perhaps 
> converting prose 
> into XPath expressions, that sort of thing.)
> 
>     It would be interesting to investigate what would be required to 
> translate high-level process models to BPEL (which the technical 
> modeller would need to complete, of course.) Do we want to 
> take it as a 
> requirement to provide such a mapping, to ensure that such a 
> transformation is at all possible. (I'm thinking of a one-way, 
> mechanical translation. I don't think anything else is really 
> practical, 
> but I'd love to be proven wrong!)
> 
>     I for one haven't heard of any current process modelling 
> tools that 
> can be translated to/from BPEL. Of course, there are a lot more 
> opportunities to link process design/analysis tools to BPMSs besides 
> simple translation, and it would be helpful if they could be 
> standardized (perhaps as extensions to BPEL?). A BPMS could 
> provide some 
> very useful services to generate feedback to a modelling tool...
> 
> Cheers,
> -Ron
> 
> Carpenter, Robert E wrote:
> 
> >I think that the discussion of human translation of the 
> business analyst's model into a BPEL model via the skeleton 
> makes a lot of sense, but my questions are: 
> >
> >(1) Does anyone have an example of a working translation 
> process for other "higher order" BPR tool to/from BPEL ? An 
> example would be SCOR level 3[or possibly SCOR level 4] <---->BPEL.
> >
> >(2) Does anyone know the "state of the art" around automated 
> conversion between these two modeling paradigms - i.e. SCOR 
> <---->BPEL ?
> >
> >
> >Rob Carpenter
> >Intel Corporation
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>