Issue 9322: BPEL over-pervasive in document (bpmn-ftf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In general I found the BPEL mapping aspect over-pervasive within the document, and not restricted to section 11. The impression could be gained that nothing can be a business process unless it can be represented in BPEL. This will tend to be off-putting to the business users the spec claims to address (I have no objection to the BPEL Mapping section) - it's just the constant references to BPEL to explain process modeling concepts and the BPMN notation. For example in the definition of the concepts in section 7.1.1 of private, public and abstract business process. Again I'm surprised there is no conformance point related to BPEL mapping. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 30, 2006: received issue April 19, 2007: closed issue Discussion: See issue 9319 for disposition End of Annotations:===== ubject: Issues on BPMN Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:17:59 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issues on BPMN Thread-Index: AcYlXIlAAqRKeKvQTICFTOCuE//pqQ== From: "Pete Rivett" To: Cc: Issue E) BPEL over-pervasive in document To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9322 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:40:01 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 05/10/2006 18:40:05, Serialize complete at 05/10/2006 18:40:05 This is a duplicate/merged Issue. The resolution and related information about this Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209322.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. Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:29:07 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de, pdf, it, nl, sv, es, ru To: Stephen A White CC: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: corrected BPMN FTF Ballot #1 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Steve, I wrote: Issue 9320: BPEL Mapping Extraction to Appendix: Duplicate: This is a duplicate Issue since another Issue (9319) will address this topic. No. On the OMG website, Issue 9320 is about conformance of an interchange format. Issue 9321: BPEL Mapping Extraction to Appendix: Duplicate: This is a duplicate Issue since another Issue (9319) will No. On the OMG website, Issue 9321 is about a compliance point for the simple business modeling subset. I noticed, belatedly, that you corrected the titles in the revised ballot "with descriptions". But these No votes still stand. I think what has happened is that you are assuming that the resolution of 9319 will rewrite the entire conformance clause, and in so doing resolve these two issues. But 9319 is about BPEL conformance only. These issues are not duplicates. Whether they are actually resolved in Issue 9319 will depend on what the text of the resolution of 9319 looks like. And it is probably premature to ballot these two issues until the replacement conformance text is on the ballot. Issue 9322: BPEL Mapping is Hard to Follow: Duplicate: This is a duplicate Issue. This Issue is closely related to Issue 9139. As the moving of BPEL text is accomplished, recommendations for making the text clearer will be identified. No. On the OMG website, Issue 9322 is titled "BPEL is over-pervasive". And the resolution should really read: "Resolved in Issue 9139." And the explanation is that all the BPEL stuff is to be pulled out of the document, wherever it may be, and moved to the Annex, with occasional Notes in the text to refer to BPEL considerations. I will revise this No to a Yes But... Here you corrected the title, but the text of the resolution still goes with Issue 9323. It is non-responsive to 9322. That is, I agree with the resolution, but the text needs to be different in the FTF report. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 In general I found the BPEL mapping aspect over-pervasive within the document, and not restricted to section 11. The impression could be gained that nothing can be a business process unless it can be represented in BPEL. This will tend to be off-putting to the business users the spec claims to address (I have no objection to the BPEL Mapping section) - it's just the constant references to BPEL to explain process modeling concepts and the BPMN notation. For example in the definition of the concepts in section 7.1.1 of private, public and abstract business process. Again I'm surprised there is no conformance point related to BPEL mapping.