[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Federated Processes and BPMS Topology
My 2 pennies follow: > Howard wrote: > > Now, this is quite different from the issue of interoperability between > different BPMS products. > I think the approach we took at BPMI.org was to assume that, as with > databases, end users would > be less interested in BPMS to BPMS interoperability then they would the > opportunity to consolidate processes > from multiple systems (as with RDBMS data aggregation). Yes, most companies will buy sets of software from a vendor. The biggest value of a standard will be in the design/implement language (like SQL, XQUERY, BPEL) for the purposes of enabling a workforce. Making products work vendor-to-vendor will happen over time. > Howard wrote: > > We saw BPMS as being the enabler to practically > share processes, as Web Services allows the sharing of functions and RDBMS > the sharing of data. In this > respect we were not in the p2p, b2b, very extended, very loosely-coupled > camp. Although, we accept some > vendors might be. Rather, we would see a gorilla in an industry managing > BPMS operations on behalf of > a trading group, and, last mile connectivity into the value chain might be > provided by, for example, deploying > an agent based approach at the periphery. Our products are in the loosely coupled/distributed arena. Personally I see both models being very useful and complimentary. The trading group example is similar to a VAN like GEIS/EDI, except much more sophisticated. BTW, I'm glad we abandoned pi-c for this thread. ++Harvey
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]