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

[lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian Lautenbacher)]

Hi Wojciech,

I don't think that we can avoid interoperability problems with the 
creation of a new language. But the focus of JWT is to get an 
interoperability between several process engines and graphical 
representations. Therefore, at the beginning we should evaluate the 
existing languages such as XPDL, jPDL, WSBPEL, BPMN, BPDM, UML2, etc. 
which are currently used by differenz vendors and engines in order to get 
an overview. Then, we can discuss what aspects are needed in our 
meta-model to cover the most important aspects of these languages.
I don't say that the meta-model from AgilPro is already perfect! Surely 
not! But, during its creation we analyzed UML, ARIS and BPMN and focused 
on the parts that were most interesting as we thought. I just want to 
avoid that we are simply using for example the XPDL meta-model and then 
can't work with other process engines anymore.

What would be the details from XPDL that are a MUST for our meta-model?

Best regards,

Florian

Wojciech Zurek wrote:

> 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