[jwt-dev] Re: [XPDL] Version?

[Marc Dutoo <marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wojciech

Thank you very much, this is very valuable input !

Saying the obvious : easing the mapping will obviously help us achieve 
our goals, and since a BPMN representation is a middle-term must have, 
easier BPMN support would be very nice.

On the other side, I'm not keen on postponing the current work because 
we don't have the required XPDL2 competencies right now in order to do a 
similar study XPDL2 vs AgilPro than what Steve has just done.

Anyway achieving support of both XPDL 1 and 2 is in itself a step 
towards genericity ^^

Regards
Marc Dutoo
Open Wide

Wojciech Zurek wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> It is true, that XPDL 1 is a subset of XPDL 2, but...
>
> On the level of activities and transitions it is very similar, but in
> terms of details it is very different. We started Business Studio with
> XPDL1, and the hat to nearly completely rewrite it for XPDL2. The
> compatibility is on the schema level only; the interpretation is
> different... unfortunately. Not many things have changed, but new
> features changed the way how you model the processes in XPDL2. Mapping
> to XPDL1 will be completely different then mapping to XPDL2.
>
> The XPDL2 introduce a lot of features that allows very seamless mapping
> to/from BPMN, without bending the rules and adding proprietary
> extensions as it was required in XPDL1. In many terms it will be easier
> to do mapping to/from XPDL2 as it is using more similar vocabulary to
> BPMN and even BPEL.
>
> I can recommend focusing on subset of XPDL2, not on XPDL1, as we had to
> throw away a lot of the code for XPDL1 when we moved to XPDL2. 
>
> We were planning to open our EMF XPDL2 models, also we plan to enhance
> these models with newest features from EMF europa release just after
> next release of Business Studio (which will be very soon, and it is
> based on XPDL2), and if JWT will be interested we could work together on
> this models.
>
> Regards,
> Wojciech
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:23 PM
> Cc: Wojciech Zurek
> Subject: Re: [XPDL] Version?
>
> Hi Steve
>
> If I'm not mistaken, XPDL 2 is backward compatible with 1 meaning 1 is a
>
> subset. Therefore a safe guess would be targeting XPDL 1 in a first time
>
> and enhancing with the XPDL 2 features that are the most useful to our 
> goals. Though obvioulsy having an XPDL 2 mapping would be a killer
> feature.
>
> Wojciech, what is your opinion ?
>
> Regards
> Marc Dutoo
> Open Wide
>
> Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
>  
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > my guess is that we will target the latest stable version of XPDL, 
> > meaning XPDL 2. But I'm not an expert in this area as my focus has
> >    
> been 
>  
>
> > more on generation of BPEL code (version 1.1 or 2.0) and I am looking 
> > forward to the comments of e.g. the colleagues from TIBCO who are more
> >    
>
>  
>
> > familiar with XPDL version 2.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Florian
> >
> >    
>
>