Re: [wsbpel] Updated FAQ

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

John Evdemon wrote:

>Monica Martin wrote:
>  
>
>>It could cause confusion to explicitly talk about the BPMN-BPEL
>>mapping in current BPMN because it is incomplete. In that group, it
>>has even been discussed to delete it because of the gaps/issues that
>>exist. I'd suggest we steer clear of this mention unless we wish to
>>indicate that BPMN seeks to model business processes such as, at some
>>level, those expressed using BPEL. Note, it is BPEL4WS not WS-BPEL (1.1 not 2.0).
>>
>>All in all, equally potentially confusing (is that a sentence?). If
>>you retain b., suggest you say that it is possible to represent. There
>>is currently no mapping defined for WS-BPEL 2.0 in BPMN. Thanks.
>>    
>>
>
>The current version of the FAQ reads as follows:
>  4.    What is the relationship between BPMN and WS-BPEL2.0?
>  a.    There is no direct relationship between BPMN and WS-BPEL 2.0.
>      WS-BPEL is a standard from OASIS and the BPMN specification is
>      currently an OMG standard for visual representation of Business
>      processes.
>
>Regardless of the gaps many people still want to generate BPEL from BPMN.
>
>  
>
I agree so what I am saying we should be accurate. They can - we could 
specify that it is possible to represent a BPEL defined process in BPMN. 
We can't however, point to BPMN specification because it lacks a mapping 
to WS-BPEL v2.0.