RE: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?

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

BPSS contains two things: a) a protocol which sits on top of the MS
protocol and b) a collaboration specification based on the concept of
choreographed business transactions. The protocol is inside the business
transaction. 

A BPMS should not deal with protocol level semantics, in other words it
is not here to enforce/implement the protocol. This is actually the role
of the BSI layer as proposed in the BPSS spec and well documented by
Stephano Pogliani.

However, if you get rid of the protocol you still have a flow of
information (request/response and exceptions generated by the BSI based
on the analysis of the protocol). 

What I propose is that BPML support at the metamodel level the concepts
of business transactions and collaboration. Isn't a business process a
series of coordinated collaborations (with partners, with enterprise
systems, and with users) ? 

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see BPML to succeed, I am just
trying to point at the past and show that BPML suffers the same lack of
vision that a WfMC or OMG has had (I need to catch up on UML 2.0 to see
where the OMG is going). It is actually amazing to me that each group
(WfMC, BPMI, EDOC, OMG MS, IBM...) consciously omits one or more side of
the problem. BPML acts just as if B2B did not exist. Aren't 90% of
enterprise processes driven by some kind of customer, supplier or
channel partner interaction?

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: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
>>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 12:57 PM
>>To: Jean-Jacques Dubray; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>>Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?
>>
>>From: Jean-Jacques Dubray
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>JJ, could you please explain what so mean by
>>"semantics but not protocol" and why you want
>>to continue to use BPML as your base?
>>Your opinion below appears to predict a short
>>life expectancy for BPML, if I understand
>>correctly.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Bob Haugen
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>