XPDL 2.1 Status

 
WFMC » XPDL 2.1 Status » Public Section
 

Notes (Note)

 

Public Description - XPDL 2.1 Status

XPDL Status April 12, 2008

  • 1. The Technical committee approved the final version of XPDL 2.1 at the Nashville meeting (Feb 26,2008)
  • 2. The WfMC member organizations were asked to review the Spec and vote on it. A spreadsheet has been compiled of the results. There were only approvals cast.
  • 3. The steering committee must now vote on final approval. This will take place at the Washington meeting ( April 23,2008)
  • 4. Work has continued on conformance. A test model for the SIMPLE portability conformance class and an XSLT to check it was made available at the Nashville meeting.
  • 5. A test model for the STANDARD portability conformance class has been provided by Bruce Silver.
  • 6. Tom Laverty has created an XSLT to test for conformance to STANDARD. He is adding structural integrity tests.

XPDL Status October 4, 2007

  • 1. Denis Gagne (dgagne@trisotech.com) has created a spreadsheet showing the differences between BPMN 1.0, BPMN 1.1 and XPDL 2.0.
  • 2. Justin Brunt (jbrunt@tibco.com) will do a diff on BPMN 1.0 and BPMN 1.1 to create an independent list of the changes.
  • 3. Robert Shapiro has begun updating the XPDL spec, including more graphics from BPMN, editing the documentation as required to fix errors and include all changes required by BPMN 1.1. Robert has the latest versions of BPMN 1.1 (one version with markup).
  • 4. The TIBCO team (tstephen@tibco.com, aallway@tibco.com, rsomayaj@tibco.com, kupadhya@tibco.com) has completed a set of proposed enhancements:
    • a. Coordinate Units
    • b. Test Run/Simulation values for the DataMapping tags
    • c. ReadOnly DataField and FormalParameter.
      • i. Has the schema change been included for FormalParameter???
    • d. User Task Scripts
    • e. Activity Auditing
  • 5. The following proposals have been submitted:
    • a. Remote Subprocess Node
    • b. Lane Performer Attribute
  • 6. The following Proposals have been submitted but need completion:
    • a. Visibility Levels of Audit Information.
    • b. Icon for node: requires portable way of defining the icon within the XML.
    • c. See attachment Telecom Italia WfMC Technical Meeting Open Points.ppt
  • 7. The following people have volunteered to help but not yet given assignments:
    • a. Arvind.Agarwal@skelta.com
    • b. paul.barros@dbxcel.com
    • c. atanu.sen@capgemini.com
    • d.
Last edited by Keith Swenson 12/13/2008(Effective date 12/13/2008)
Last modified by