Fw: [wsbpel] Background to Workflow/Pi Paper: Response to Jon

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

More on this thread!

Now you all know alot more than I do at this stage.

I still need to find time to read the PDF and then ping
Howard with some questions.

DW.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Howard N Smith" <howard.smith@ontology.org>
To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Jon Pyke" <jpyke@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: <ghalimi@intalio.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:04 AM
Subject: [wsbpel] Background to Workflow/Pi Paper: Response to Jon


> Jon Pykr/chair WFMC said
>
> >For the sake of clarification Howard Smith's paper is not sent on behalf
> >of the WfMC or any individual associated with the WfMC - it may be
> >Howard's intention to use the paper as a discussion document at the next
> >joint meeting but any inference to it being WfMC policy or agreed
> >statement would be incorrect.
>
> Jon is correct. The paper is, as stated, a paper by Howard Smith
> and Peter Fingar. It is Copyright CSC, and reflects our experience
> in the field of BPR and BPM. The background to the paper is this:
>
> About 18 months ago, I alerted the BPMI board to the existence of the
> workflow patterns work of Wil van der Aalst. Although I am far from
> convinced that the patterns expressed there are complete, in the sense
> of ontology, I felt they provided a useful way to evaluate BPML/BPMS
> and to help bridge the gap that existed between the understanding
> on the WFMC side and the BPMI side. I recommended that
> companies implementing BPML to interact with Aalst. We did some
> "back of the envelope work" to show the patterns could be supported,
> and then approached him. He in fact had already started to look at
> BPML. But something went wrong. He looked at the matter from the
> perspective of comparing the tags in BPML against other XML process
> languages, and also directly against the patterns. Of course, he got
> the wrong result. He did not take into account the ability of BPMS-
> based technologies, based on the Pi-C, to combine processes,
> for example, modeling a workflow "activity" as a process. We tried
> to explain this, but he went ahead and published. Since the answer
> was wrong, and people could draw wrong conclusions, we had to do
> some more work ourselves to prove the patterns could be implemented.
> We could have just refuted Aalst's work, but that would not be credible.
> So, we spent a lot of time and modelled all the patterns, in fact more
> than this, we modelled them to the extent of being reusable executable
> processes. We went further, and showed how a complete workflow
> engine could exist "inside the BPMS", and expressed only by BPML.
>
> It is this work that the paper reports on.
>
> Of course, we would have preferred an indepedent expert, like Aalst
> to show this, but in the end we had to do it ourselves.
>
> In parallel with this, we were also in discussion with WfMC and Jon.
> Joint work was being proposed between WFMC and BPMI. One item
> was to look closely at XPDL and understand the semantics to the extent
> that it could be expressed in BPML, or whether there were contructs
> in XPDL which required extensions to BPML. The status of this work
> will be discussed in Orlando next week.  I don't want to pre-judge.
> In any case, the bottom line is, CSC is finding BPMS to be very
> useful as a POA over a SOA and the comments in the paper stand.
>
> The whole idea of the paper was to announce some results, further
> explain BPMI.org's direction, and enhance understanding of how
> BPML technologies can be used to do things never before possible.
> Experience with BPMS as it goes forward will provide more insights
> over time. It is a CSC paper, not a WFMC or BPMI paper. But of
> course, Ismael and I fully support what the paper says, from a BPMI.org
> viewpoint. From the reaction we are getting to the paper it is helping
> others understand.
>
> btw - we are open to receive comments and to work towards further
> papers to explain this breakthrough, which began with the co-founding
> group in 1999.
>
> Howard
>
> At 04:41 PM 11/12/2003 +0000, Jon Pyke wrote:
> >For the sake of clarification Howard Smith's paper is not sent on behalf
> >of the WfMC or any individual associated with the WfMC - it may be
> >Howard's intention to use the paper as a discussion document at the next
> >joint meeting but any inference to it being WfMC policy or agreed
> >statement would be incorrect.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Jon Pyke
> >Chair WfMC
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org]
> >Sent: 12 November 2003 14:13
> >To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Subject: [wsbpel] v2.1 - Workflow is just a Pi process - new paper from
> >CSC, as PDF download
> >
> >
> >fyi
> >
> >http://www.bpm3.com/picalculus/workflow-is-just-a-pi-process.pdf
> >
> >This paper provides an update on the unification of WFM and BPM. It was
> >written to provide
> >enhanced understanding between the WFMC and BPMI community and may also
> >be helpful to
> >members of BPEL TC at OASIS. It shows how workflow patterns can be
> >modelled using BPML
> >and how BPMS can use BPML to implement workflow semantics. As such, it
> >illustrates aspects
> >roadmap towards BPMS and the "use cases" for BPEL.
> >
> >Abstract: There is much talk today about a business process management
> >(BPM) rEvolution.
> >The revolutionary part is about a new category of software known as the
> >business process
> >management system (BPMS). The evolutionary part is about using the BPMS
> >to exploit existing
> >business and technology assets in a way that creates new value. Along
> >with any revolution
> >comes confusion. What exactly is BPM? Isn't it just workflow technology,
> >which has been in
> >use for twenty years, plus Web services? Why don't we describe what is
> >going on today as
> >the "new workflow rEvolution," a subtle extension of workflow systems?
> >To answer these
> >questions, we explore the foundations of the workflow paradigm, and
> >describe the paradigm
> >shift in technology that is needed to overcome limitations of workflow
> >systems to build and
> >deploy robust business process management systemsthe kind of information
> >systems that
> >businesses now demand as new sources of competitive advantage in an ever
> >more uncertain
> >and complex global economy.
> >
> >Feedback welcome.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Howard Smith
> >CSC/BPMI
> >
> >
> >cell            +44 7711 594 494 (worldwide)
> >home office +44 20 8660 1963
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> >the OASIS TC), go to
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
> >oup.php.
>
> ---
>
> New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
> www.bpm3.com
>
> Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
> cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
> office +44 20 8660 1963
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>