Comments on: BPM Think Tank Day 1: BPDM http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/ BPM, Enterprise 2.0 and technology trends in business. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:08:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Complex Event Processing (CEP) Blog » DEBS08(2) - Overloaded Agents http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/comment-page-1/#comment-8323 Complex Event Processing (CEP) Blog » DEBS08(2) - Overloaded Agents Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:16:25 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/#comment-8323 [...] like equivalence to XPDL, that SBVR business notation equates to process rules, or that BPDM is used (implication: directly) by business users. Of course, existing BPDM descriptions are focused on selling the idea to the BPM community [...] [...] like equivalence to XPDL, that SBVR business notation equates to process rules, or that BPDM is used (implication: directly) by business users. Of course, existing BPDM descriptions are focused on selling the idea to the BPM community [...]

]]> By: Sandy Kemsley http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/comment-page-1/#comment-5106 Sandy Kemsley Wed, 24 May 2006 14:08:43 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/#comment-5106 Phil, don't mistake my live blogging (which I do at the conference, hitting "Publish" before the applause dies down at the end of a session) for well-thought-out analysis. I'm not an expert on the distinctions between XPDL and BPDM, but hoped to learn a bit more about how this layer of standards (whether de facto standards or those recognized by standards bodies) and how they compete and/or interact. I didn't learn that in this session. I agree with you on SOA and BPM. My argument with Cummins' view was that he equated SOA with the actual services, not with the architectural "philosophy" that encourages the creation of those services. Phil, don’t mistake my live blogging (which I do at the conference, hitting “Publish” before the applause dies down at the end of a session) for well-thought-out analysis. I’m not an expert on the distinctions between XPDL and BPDM, but hoped to learn a bit more about how this layer of standards (whether de facto standards or those recognized by standards bodies) and how they compete and/or interact. I didn’t learn that in this session.

I agree with you on SOA and BPM. My argument with Cummins’ view was that he equated SOA with the actual services, not with the architectural “philosophy” that encourages the creation of those services.

]]> By: Phil Gilbert http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/comment-page-1/#comment-5105 Phil Gilbert Tue, 23 May 2006 22:58:14 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2006/05/bpm-think-tank-day-1-bpdm/#comment-5105 Sandy, A couple of things. First, in re: defining BPM and SOA, I think that SOA is the alignment of IT assets in a way that can be easily consumed by the business. BPM is the definition of the consumption. BPM is where "the last mile" is defined and is, therefore, arguably, where agility is made real. But there has to be a recognition that there are many IT assets that are, will and probably should always be managed by IT (think of the telephone network for example: I would never want to manage any part of that, yet I still want to manage how it touches me - through my phone). Those assets are more properly aligned to the business via SOA. It's not circular at all, it's how assets are aligned, governed and consumed. Second, BPDM vs. XPDL? Come on. XPDL was built for workflow and although you can reposit a BPMN model in it (according to a couple of vendors), it certainly is not built to hold the metadata required for modern process notions (BPMN, BPEL, BPRI and others to come). The XPDL community has an asset and they want to prolong that asset (which never achieved status from an independent standards org, by the way). Fair enough. But to suggest this is a "standards war" is giving it way too much status. BPMN is not the only BP-* standard of interest. BPDM recognizes this and is purpose-built to acknowledge a growing body of process standards. As to specificity... the BPDM spec is floating around and will be issued with a reference BPMN implementation sometime around June 30. I wasn't at the BPDM track today but I think the idea was to give general guidance to a crowd new to it... if you want the details, I am sure the spec as it stands today is available... See you tomorrow, Phil Sandy,

A couple of things. First, in re: defining BPM and SOA, I think that SOA is the alignment of IT assets in a way that can be easily consumed by the business. BPM is the definition of the consumption. BPM is where “the last mile” is defined and is, therefore, arguably, where agility is made real. But there has to be a recognition that there are many IT assets that are, will and probably should always be managed by IT (think of the telephone network for example: I would never want to manage any part of that, yet I still want to manage how it touches me – through my phone). Those assets are more properly aligned to the business via SOA. It’s not circular at all, it’s how assets are aligned, governed and consumed.

Second, BPDM vs. XPDL? Come on. XPDL was built for workflow and although you can reposit a BPMN model in it (according to a couple of vendors), it certainly is not built to hold the metadata required for modern process notions (BPMN, BPEL, BPRI and others to come). The XPDL community has an asset and they want to prolong that asset (which never achieved status from an independent standards org, by the way). Fair enough. But to suggest this is a “standards war” is giving it way too much status. BPMN is not the only BP-* standard of interest. BPDM recognizes this and is purpose-built to acknowledge a growing body of process standards. As to specificity… the BPDM spec is floating around and will be issued with a reference BPMN implementation sometime around June 30. I wasn’t at the BPDM track today but I think the idea was to give general guidance to a crowd new to it… if you want the details, I am sure the spec as it stands today is available…

See you tomorrow,
Phil

]]>