FW: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?

[Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>]

 

I must admit that it has been a little frustrating to define a widely accepted articulation between BPSS and BPML. Political issues aside, they should be very complementary.

 

When I worked at BPMI I settled for a binding framework between BPML and BPSS, such that BPML could be bound to other B2B infrastructure, not just ebXML.

 

It appears to me that there is only one B2B infrastructure left on the table today (ebXML) and this is not going to change. BizTalk framework is dead, RN has pledged to adopt ebXML, large industries like the Automotive industry have standardize both demand and supply chain on ebXML….

 

In the light of this observation, I am now in favor of bringing some of the semantics of BPSS (not the protocol part) into BPML. Namely BPML must deal with Business Transaction as well as it deals with Web Services.

 

BPML is much more focused on Web Services rather than B2B, this is unfortunate – they are missing a huge opportunity. Web Services as they stand today (and in light of the design of BPSS) will not be able to efficiently support complex B2B transactions. Everybody knows this and talk about it in private.

 

In the ideal world, BPML would bring User, Enterprise systems and B2B interaction in one compelling metamodel. Web Services are just one side of the equation. BPSS is another one, missing is how do you model user interactions effectively? I actually created our own PML which does exactly that. I don’t think it is really complex to do it, it is rather a mater of vision (or pragmatism).

 

I run a little web site that collects information about PMLs like BPML, WfMC, … and try to describe an articulation between ebXML, PMLs, Web Services and business languages. Here is a link that shows a possible binding between BPML and BPSS (http://www.ebpml.org/bpss_binding.htm).

 

To be fair XLang, and WSFL are not smarter but MS and IBM are so entrenched in selling Web Service infrastructure that I can excuse them, why do BPMI has to do the same mistake? I don’t know. My prediction is that BPML will suffer the same fate of other Process-Oriented languages which all failed to look at the problem globally and just addressed one aspect of business processes, therefore limiting tremendously the value and the adoption of the technology.

 

There is more in the book that Pim references in case you want to go further.

 

Feel free to contribute to www.ebpml.org if you want to.

 

Cheers,

 

Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________

Chief Architect

Eigner  Precision Lifecycle Management

200 Fifth Avenue

Waltham, MA 02451

Tel: 781-472-6317

Cell: 508-816-4518

email: jjd@eigner.com

url: www.eigner.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:47 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?

 

From: "Rajesh_KumarT" <Rajesh_KumarT@infy.com>
To: "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>,
        "ebxml-dev" <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>

Is there any kind of documentation/minutes available that gives the details of the cross-discussions held and what was the outcome of the discussions?  Would also be great to get pointers to the work being done in making all the available, related specifications interoperable.

Herr van der Eijk is exactly right -- the most careful thought on this that I've seen is JJ's published chapter, and JJ's own comments in our various discussion groups.   If you want to look at the informal discussions as well, ebXML policy is to keep them publicly available.   I believe they are presently located in the last 3 months of the ebxml-bp v1.0 archive at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-bp/.   Regards  JBC

~ James Bryce Clark   
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce  
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com    jbc@lawyer.com
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.