Issue 9240: Mapping to BPEL should be moved to the appendix (bpmn-ftf) Source: Hewlett-Packard (Mr. Fred A. Cummins, fred.cummins@eds.com fredcummins@acm.org) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: Since BPMN is considered to provide a business-level representation of processes (i.e., a PIM), it is appropriate that the mapping to BPEL be moved to the appendix. In addition, the BPEL mapping should not be defined as a normative part of the specification since BPEL is viewed as a platform/execution language. In other words, the transformation could be different depending on the particular implementation of BPEL. A normative mapping to WSDL and choreography (which might be expressed in BPEL) is needed, but should be a mapping from a normative BPMN metamodel rather than the graphical notation. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 12, 2006: received issue April 19, 2007: closed issue Discussion: See issue 9139 for disposition End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 12 Jan 2006 12:33:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Fred Cummins Company: EDS mailFrom: fred.cummins@eds.com Notification: No Specification: BPMN Section: 6 FormalNumber: bei/05-08-07 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: 5/3/05 Page: - Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Since BPMN is considered to provide a business-level representation of processes (i.e., a PIM), it is appropriate that the mapping to BPEL be moved to the appendix. In addition, the BPEL mapping should not be defined as a normative part of the specification since BPEL is viewed as a platform/execution language. In other words, the transformation could be different depending on the particular implementation of BPEL. A normative mapping to WSDL and choreography (which might be expressed in BPEL) is needed, but should be a mapping from a normative BPMN metamodel rather than the graphical notation. Subject: RE: issue 9240 -- BPMN FTF issue Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:10:29 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 9240 -- BPMN FTF issue Thread-Index: AcYdNQv8TXy4sycgT7yZjSfhaIQAjwAD/eCw From: "Rob Bartel" To: "Juergen Boldt" Hi, I'm not sure if you were needing responses to this, but I absolutely agree with Fred on this issue. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:12 PM To: issues@omg.org; bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 9240 -- BPMN FTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 12 Jan 2006 12:33:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Fred Cummins Company: EDS mailFrom: fred.cummins@eds.com Notification: No Specification: BPMN Section: 6 FormalNumber: bei/05-08-07 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: 5/3/05 Page: - Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Since BPMN is considered to provide a business-level representation of processes (i.e., a PIM), it is appropriate that the mapping to BPEL be moved to the appendix. In addition, the BPEL mapping should not be defined as a normative part of the specification since BPEL is viewed as a platform/execution language. In other words, the transformation could be different depending on the particular implementation of BPEL. A normative mapping to WSDL and choreography (which might be expressed in BPEL) is needed, but should be a mapping from a normative BPMN metamodel rather than the graphical notation. ================================= Jürgen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group, Inc. 140 Kendrick Street Building A, Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 Fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www www.omg.org ================================ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution of Issue 9240 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:21:11 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 05/08/2006 23:21:11, Serialize complete at 05/08/2006 23:21:11 This is a duplicate Issue. The resolution and related information about this Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209240.htm If you have any comments, questions, suggested revisions about the current resolution, or an alternative resolution, then reply to this message or speak up at a group meeting. Thanks.