 |
Bruce Silver's BPMS Watch
Dr. Bruce Silver is an independent industry analyst and consultant focused on business process management and content management technologies. He is the author of the BPMS Watch blog, writes the BPMS Watch column on BPMInstitute.org and also serves as BPMS Track chair at the Brainstorm BPM Conferences. See More by Bruce Silver Views on BPEL (Re: Oracle, IBM, SAP and Microsoft)
Sandy Kemsley calls attention to an excellent review of BPEL's history and current status from Oracle's Dave Shaffer and Manoj Das in (ironically) WebSphere Journal. Probably the best summary of the differences between the new BPEL 2.0 and the little-lamented BPEL 1.1 standard that I've seen yet in print. She also notes the seeming fakeness of BPEL4People, a joint SAP-IBM white paper that appeared 18 months ago that has achieved what I agree is the highest buzz-to-bang ratio in the history of BPM. My sources tell me that IBM and SAP have been meeting actively to put forth a BPEL4People spec later this spring, an activity that for some reason the companies' lawyers have shrouded in secrecy. If you recall my original post on this topic, the essence of the BPEL4People white paper is a new BPEL People activity that allows human task management to be integrated more directly with the BPEL logic than is possible with standard Invoke and an external task management service. That means BPEL4People "breaks" BPEL 2.0 engines, except for those with the foresight to implement the People activity. What, you don't have the specs for that? Oh, that's right… What Sandy also doesn't mention is Devesh Sharma's claim at ARIS Process World that Oracle has submitted its own approach — standard Invoke plus the external task management service, i.e. compatible with BPEL 2.0 engines — to the BPEL4People "process" at OASIS. If that's so, it should make for an interesting meeting when IBM and SAP unveil their baby. Sandy also notes (where does she find the time to read all this stuff?) Dave Chappell's comments on Microsoft's token support for BPEL in Windows Workflow Foundation as a "political" expediency. However, she fails to remark on Dave's real contribution to this discussion, which is that BPMN — not BPEL — will be the real portability standard for BPM. I have come to that conclusion myself, but Dave (as usual) beat me to it by six months or so. And then she kind of ruins it by passing on without comment Burton Group's conclusion that "BPEL is just a placeholder for WS-CDL until that choreography standard is ready for prime time." So idiotic I can't even bring myself to click on the link.  E-MAIL | SLASHDOT | DIGG This is a public forum. CMP Technology and its affiliates are not responsible for and do not control what is posted herein. CMP Technology makes no warranties or guarantees concerning any advice dispensed by its staff members or readers. Community standards in this comment area do not permit hate language, excessive profanity, or other patently offensive language. Please be aware that all information posted to this comment area becomes the property of CMP Media LLC and may be edited and republished in print or electronic format as outlined in CMP Technology's Terms of Service. Important Note: This comment area is NOT intended for commercial messages or solicitations of business.
|
|
Blog Channels
Cindi Howson on Business Intelligence The Brain Food Blogger Tony Byrne on Content Management SQL Puzzlers by Joe Celko Rajan Chandras on IT & Information Management Seth Grimes on Analytics In Context by Doug Henschen Phil Kemelor on Web Analytics Sandy Kemsley's Column Two Nelson King on Enterprise App Development David Linthicum on Software as a Service Natural Insight, By Mark Madsen Alan Pelz-Sharpe on Content Management Mark Smith on Performance Management Neil Raden on Business Intelligence Bruce Silver on Business Process Management Product Maven  Subscribe to RSS Archives
|
|
|