[news.eclipse.technology.jwt] Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded

["Wojciech Zurek" <wzurek@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why do you think that we can avoid interoperability problems if we invent 
new language?

The other thing is that probably all current standards were starting exactly 
the same - XPDL and BPEL and others they were trying to find out what is 
really important and really needed for process execution and/or 
vizualization- and trying to store it somehow so the engines/tools could map 
their behaviours to it.

(don't get me wrong, I'm not very against new meta-model, but I just want to 
discuss it as I am not very convinced either)

Best regards,
Wojciech

"Florian Lautenbacher" <lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in 
message news:6138b59bb43164046e1b9300d8f8de43$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Wojciech,
>
> you are right, this is just another language / meta-model for describing 
> business processes. I agree, that JWT should provide some toolbox for 
> working with the existing workflow models. But therefore we need one basic 
> meta-model where all important informations for workflow execution can be 
> stored and all other existing languages can be mapped to. The AgilPro 
> meta-model is just a starting point for discussion what really is needed 
> for workflow execution. Surely, we could simply take the XPDL meta-model 
> or the BPDM or UML or BPEL, etc. but then it will be hard to get the 
> interoperability between the chosen language and the other ones.
> Therefore in our first working step we need to analyze the requirements we 
> have for a meta-model. If there are many things in AgilPro that can be 
> removed, okay, but first we need to gather the requirements and then we 
> can discuss how the "interoperability meta-model" should look like in my 
> opinion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
>