David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Standardizing the Right Thing: BPMN or BPEL?  
# Thursday, June 29, 2006
 
Creating portable process logic is certainly a good thing. Today, most of the focus for doing this is on BPEL, an executable language for describing processes. As I've argued before, BPEL currently falls short of this goal. Yet even if it didn’t, is BPEL really the right thing to standardize?

Think about the goals we’re trying to achieve. Portability of process logic, the ability to move implementations from one platform to another, is certainly one of them. But portability of people, allowing us to move our skills from one process design tool to another, is also important. BPEL can potentially help with the first goal, but it’s not appropriate for the second; the majority of people who create processes will never work directly in this complex XML-based language. Instead, BPEL is typically generated from some graphical process description. The emerging standard for specifying processes graphically is the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). If BPMN becomes widely supported, as seems possible, it will make people’s process design skills portable.

So wouldn’t it also make sense to use BPMN as the foundation for making the process logic itself portable?The most recent version of the XML Process Definition Language (XPDL), created by the Workflow Management Coalition, defines a way to do this. By specifying a standard XML file format for representing serialized BPMN diagrams, XPDL 2.0 provides a way to move process logic between different environments. Assuming that we can express everything we need to say about an executable process in BPMN--something that's at least a small leap of faith—why should anyone care about BPEL? BPMN and the standard representation provided by XPDL 2.0 can achieve both portability of people’s skills and portability of the process logic those people create. Who cares what language is ultimately used to execute that logic?

There are some challenges in making this a reality, of course. BPMN isn’t yet fully supported, especially by the major vendors, nor is the XPDL 2.0 serialization of BPMN widely used today. Also, although it was created elsewhere, BPMN is now owned by the Object Management Group (OMG). Producing straightforward, usable standards in a timely manner hasn’t been OMG’s forte, so I can’t help worrying a bit here. Also, OMG is hard at work creating a Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM) that, among other things, is meant to provide an alternative to XPDL for conveying serialized BPMN diagrams.

Given all of the vendors and standards organizations involved, the most likely outcome is probably a mishmash of partially supported standards, with users left paying the price. Still, the goals are clear: portability of both people’s process design skills and of the process logic they create. Focusing on the graphical process definition notation can address both of these areas. Fully standardizing BPMN, complete with a standard file format, seems likely to be a better solution than standardizing just an executable language such as BPEL.


5 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

David, I like your SOA/BPM blog entries. Makes me alert ;)

If I could draw Java, I would have.

If I could execute UML, I would have.

With BPEL I can both draw and execute.
 

I've always believed the real value in BPEL is in the abstract. BPEL has nothing to do with drawing or modeling, despite the previous comment. To me the BPEL spec is a platform you build upon - conceptually similar to WS-Security.
 

I would be interested in your opinion on how SCA can contribute to the portability of BPEL. Since BPEL is being defined as an implementation type for service components it seems that this could foster portability as the functionality not covered by BPEL (that you discussed in "The Case Against BPEL") can be implemented through references and wires.
 

This is a really interesting comment--thanks. We don't yet know too much about the details of SCA's support for BPEL. Still, it certainly is plausible that just specifying this in a multi-vendor way will nail down some of BPEL's loose ends.

At least one big issue, support for human workflow, would seem to be outside SCA's scope, so I'd be surprised if it helps here. And trying to combine the semantics of BPEL with the semantics of SCA (simple as they are) might well present a few challenges. Nonetheless, I think your overall point is quite likely to be correct: defining a BPEL implementation type for SCA should help make BPEL more portable. Whether the result is portable enough to overcome the things that worry me remains an open question, but the potential for progress appears real.
 

I've always seen BPEL as a low level "machine interoperability" standard whereas BPMN is more abstract and accessible to less technical, business orientated users.

However, in choosing a standard approach to process modeling, it is important to consider "who" is going to be doing the modeling.

While software developers may well be comfortable with BPEL, business architects (IMHO) certainly are not.

Conversely, BPMN excels in the professional consultant / business analyst arena. The widespread adoption of BPMN is attractive and attractive proposition for this users as it creates a standard approach and a portable skill set.

However, there is another class of business user who wish to construct and execute business processes but who find both specifications intellectually out of reach. These people do not wish to rely on expensive software developer or consultant resources to automate their processes, but would rather get on and "do it themselves".

If you believe that this is a realistic aspiration, then challenge for the process modeling industry is to find a modeling paradigm sufficiently simple, abstract and intuitive to allow these users to express their process requirements, combined with a toolset that is robust enough to allow the processes to be created, validated, executed and managed with ease.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home