BPAF Discussion

• Can this be used by modeling tool? - yes, it is useful for any tool that wants to consume process history.
• Can also be used for simulation results, as well as simulation input.

• Should we define a set of metrics (KPIs ) that can be computed on the basis of BPAF events. It might be more efficient for the engine to give the metrics, instead of the raw data.

• KPI should be a part of XPDL.
• a trivial extension to the data attributes could be used to mark data as being workflow relevant data.
• One thing we do not store is performer information. Not in the log. It would be a data element. Should we proscribe a way to do this?
• What about the "role" that the performer is playing?

• MXML Format (Mining XML format) - how do they compare, how much effort to convert. - Michael will investigate.
• implementation? None yet, but need it.
• CHALLENGE: someone should write an import filter that reads BPAF. Easy to do that, and contribute to ProM framework.
• CHALLENGE: ProM to export XPDL
• Robert wil make a couple of XSLT script to convert both ways to/from MXML.

• ACTION ITEM: Why not just use MXML - too stripped down.
• What kind of demo can we do? Take event streams from multiple vendors, and convert to BPAF, and then have a plug-in to ProM that demonstrates the consumption of that.
• Simulation results are key. Closed loop feedback. Sell to modeling tools.
• Action Item: set up demonstration of this.

Model Portability

• IDEA: if a vendor is certified, they MUST supply a support person to address interchange difficulties.