Demonstration and discussion of BPMN portability conformance for SIMPLE and STANDARD classes
General Discussion of XPDL conformance. Establish procedures, Review Group etc.
See attached files on Compliance. Compliance Testing.docx and Compliance testing addendum.rtf for discussion at the meeting.
WG4 - Wf-XML (Run-time Interoperability)
Coordination with Open Geospatial Consortium situation
Wf-XML-R Status (Keith Swenson) (please review attached PDF file: WfXML-R.pdf for discussion at the meeting.)
Name discussion.
WG5 meeting (BPAF)
Business Process Analytics Format Status (Michael zur Muehlen, Shane Gabie)
Status of BPRI
Future work & AOB
Work and Activities: Status / Overview / Update
Discussion for new Interface 2 working group.
Tutorial Presentation Materials Status.
Industry Architecture & Standards Stack
Glossary update
Other standardization initiatives including
ISO status,
OMG BPDM status.
Reference Model update
Wikipedia: has a page on Process Architecture that does not mention our Reference Architecture, and probably should since the page is criticized as being from a single source.
Any other business
??
Steering Committee Agenda
I. Steering Committee, Chair: Jon Pyke
Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Agenda Discussion
Introductions
Approval of New Specifications
Officer and Committee Openings
Update/Action Items on WfMC Talking Points
II. ER Committee, Chair: Ken Mei
2008/2009 Meeting Schedule
XPDL Adoption and Publicity Campaign
2007/2008 Awards Programs
III. Executive Director
Summary of Activities
New Members and Membership Activity
New Programs
Change in Country Chapter Charter
IV. Treasurer?s Report
V. Additional Business
Speaking Conflicts
Keith: Wednesday 9:40-10:25
Michael: Tue 10:30-11:15
Michael: Wed 10:35-12:00
Robert: Tuesday 9:30-10:15
Shane: Tuesday 11:30-12:00
Pat Cappelaere: Wed 2:30-3:15
Technical Committee Minutes
Anti-trust ? statement brought to attendees attention.
Minutes from Previous Meeting Nashville
Robert Shapiro moved to approve minutes and Shane Gabie seconded. Minuets unanimously accepted/approved
Attendees
Shane Gabie
Tom Laverty
Pat Cappelaere
Robert Shapiro
Justin Brunt
Keith Swenson
Cor Visser (pm)
Yoshihisa Sadakane(pm)
Kwang-Hoon Kim (pm)
Michael zur Muehlen (pm)
Agenda Review
Speaker conflicts dictate order of agenda
XPDL - XPDL 2.1 voting in SC on Wednesday on ratification of completed specification. No objections received to date. Based on success of XPDL expectations now higher so need to spend time on conformance compliance topic
BPAF - Intention to get first draft out for review. Need to discuss today.
Wf-XML
Working Group 1
XPDL conformance/compliance
TC XPDL 2.1 approved at Nashville meeting
Made available to members for vote.
SC vote to release as official spec on Wednesday
Continued to work on portability. Tom Laverty worked on XSLT to test conformance. Working with Bruce Silver.
Initially working on 2 initial classes. Bruce came up with BPMN diagrams to demonstrate compliance.
XSL lists violations and structural problems. Many tools will malfunction if read structurally problematic XPDL docs even if pass schema.
Get all vendors to buy into SIMPLE compliance test.
Need to discuss whether vendors validate own models. Spec includes SIMPLE model but now also have STANDARD model (but not in spec.).
Test can run SIMPLE test against any model not just against the SIMPLE Model.
Structural integrity can be applied to any model.
Need document that provides.
Robert has demo that walks through the process of validation.
Conformance page on Wiki which includes conformance forum. Not much traffic at the moment.
Should put conformance materials on to the Wiki and make sure point people to this.
XSL, usage documentation, diagrams and XPDL representation etc. should be posted. Document includes SIMPLE and STANDARD.
Need document on STANDARD and how to prove conformance.
SIMPLE XPDL generated by ITP Commerce and STANDARD was generated by Global 360 and is an example generated by ITP Commerce.
Some questions have arisen as part of this work.
For example - Some tools support embedded sub-procs displayed in context of process that they are embedded within. Nothing to do with conformance per se. Can all tools do the right thing when collapsing and expanding the sub-procs.
Could continue this discussion on the forum but not sure how much success there would be in doing this.
Robert put out straw man proposal for model for conformance compliance.
3 main categories
? Import
? Export
? Import/Export
Hardest part ? elements and attributes in a portability conformance class above that which the tool claims to support.
Need to work on this issue. Need to enlist other s in this exercise so that it doesn?t end up as a single vendor driven initiative.
Graphical conformance ? layout and resizing etc.
Grades of conformance not just a simple yes/no. need to be able to view the imported diagram and it to have an acceptable understanding (visually).
Assess on import to determine scaling relative to normal to that tool and display accordingly. On export what should be done? If don?t scale may end up with overlapping nodes.
ACTION Robert Shapiro- Need to make recommendation on how to scale on Import. Robert will rework his section on graphical layout and we can the review.
Test process for import what XPDL should look like on screen when imported
Test diagram for creation and export
Keith/Nathaniel suggest Checklist/matrix for self compliance? Spot checks to verify that vendors are correctly declaring their tools compliance.
Pat ? who should have access to these tools? WfMC members only?
A suggestion might be - Free for self checks and declaration. Charge for WfMC endorsed conformance. What level of charge should it be? Who would provide the service (remember Doculabs proposal) Defer to SC.
Web based tool/wizard. Need to be able to see what generated XPDL looks like in another vendor neutral tool.
Description of quality of XPDL
At OGC for every new specification a conformance suite must be provided.
Start with SIMPLE model.
Include reference to/acknowledgement of BPM Japan compliance effort.
Pat suggested Vendor ?bake-off? but within closed doors. Each vendor could then decide what to do about own results. Perform in conjunction with OGC. RFP in conjunction with OGC ? interoperability of XPDL 2.1 and see who responds. Sponsorship from large organizations (government agencies etc.)to sponsor and then be able to reimburse participants. In 6 months+ time? Need to devise scenarios that are realizable.
Would need practice event at fall meeting.
Cor suggested sending out RFI to certification organizations to see what responses have.
Way of tackling organization issues might be under the auspices of an XPDL users group.
If an external organization performs testing they would have a learning curve and a burden on WfMC committee members.
Could one of the vendor?s tools be used as the basis for a web based test tool? Global 360, Fujitsu, TIBCO?
Similar to Keith?s XML Formatter ? paste XPDL in and then get graphic of process in return providing it passes the schema and structural test etc.
Robert proposed a motion to perform an XPDL interoperability bake off in conjunction with OGC and seconded by Keith. To be proposed to SC.
Robert demonstrated conformance test using ITP Commerce to produce the process and associated XPDL.
BPAF
Michael presented current state of draft specification.
Process state Model. Don't have equivalent to for activity model so idea was to look at WS-HumanTask/BPEL4People activity state model. How would we name the events that are being recorded. Names differ between BPAF and WS-HumanTask/BPEL4People.
For every event show state that transitioning into and ideally the one that was being exited from.
Discussion of states required and correspondence between BPAF and WS-HumanTask/BPEL4People?
ACTION ? Michael to update BPAF document following discussion on states required.
Interfaces 2 and 4
Keith would like to restart interface 2 initiative with a Web services emphasis.
Need new acronym for interface 2 as it gains more interest than ?Interface 5?.
Two separate work groups for worklist related topics and interoperability
W-XML-R
Keith presented an overview of Wf-XML-R document.
Standards Book
Put together based on transcript from Nashville tutorial. The book is printed on demand and costs $15 and WfMC makes $6 per book. It is proposed that it could be tailored for vendors based on sponsorship.
Last edited by Keith Swenson 12/13/2008(Effective date 12/13/2008)
You are viewing a static copy of
a project that was originally a wiki.
These pages can not be modified
at this location even though the page
may appear incomplete.
This copy was generated on
01/29/2012
and this project information has not been
changed since 12/13/2008.
WfMC Technical Committee Meeting, Apr 22-23, 2008
Monday, 4/21/08
Tuesday, 4/22/08
Wednesday, 4/23/08
Thursday, 4/24/08
*Working Group meetings will need to be worked around Jon, Michael, Robert, Shane and Keith's presentations
Agenda
Technical Committee, Chair: Keith Swenson
WG1-XPDL (Process Definition Interchange)
WG4 - Wf-XML (Run-time Interoperability)
WG5 meeting (BPAF)
Work and Activities: Status / Overview / Update
Any other business
Steering Committee Agenda
I. Steering Committee, Chair: Jon Pyke
II. ER Committee, Chair: Ken Mei
III. Executive Director
IV. Treasurer?s Report
V. Additional Business
Speaking Conflicts
Technical Committee Minutes
Anti-trust ? statement brought to attendees attention.
Minutes from Previous Meeting Nashville
Robert Shapiro moved to approve minutes and Shane Gabie seconded. Minuets unanimously accepted/approved
Attendees
Agenda Review
Working Group 1
XPDL conformance/compliance
TC XPDL 2.1 approved at Nashville meeting Made available to members for vote. SC vote to release as official spec on Wednesday Continued to work on portability. Tom Laverty worked on XSLT to test conformance. Working with Bruce Silver. Initially working on 2 initial classes. Bruce came up with BPMN diagrams to demonstrate compliance. XSL lists violations and structural problems. Many tools will malfunction if read structurally problematic XPDL docs even if pass schema.
Get all vendors to buy into SIMPLE compliance test. Need to discuss whether vendors validate own models. Spec includes SIMPLE model but now also have STANDARD model (but not in spec.).
Test can run SIMPLE test against any model not just against the SIMPLE Model. Structural integrity can be applied to any model. Need document that provides.
Robert has demo that walks through the process of validation. Conformance page on Wiki which includes conformance forum. Not much traffic at the moment.
Should put conformance materials on to the Wiki and make sure point people to this. XSL, usage documentation, diagrams and XPDL representation etc. should be posted. Document includes SIMPLE and STANDARD. Need document on STANDARD and how to prove conformance.
SIMPLE XPDL generated by ITP Commerce and STANDARD was generated by Global 360 and is an example generated by ITP Commerce. Some questions have arisen as part of this work. For example - Some tools support embedded sub-procs displayed in context of process that they are embedded within. Nothing to do with conformance per se. Can all tools do the right thing when collapsing and expanding the sub-procs. Could continue this discussion on the forum but not sure how much success there would be in doing this. Robert put out straw man proposal for model for conformance compliance. 3 main categories ? Import ? Export ? Import/Export Hardest part ? elements and attributes in a portability conformance class above that which the tool claims to support. Need to work on this issue. Need to enlist other s in this exercise so that it doesn?t end up as a single vendor driven initiative.
Graphical conformance ? layout and resizing etc.
Grades of conformance not just a simple yes/no. need to be able to view the imported diagram and it to have an acceptable understanding (visually). Assess on import to determine scaling relative to normal to that tool and display accordingly. On export what should be done? If don?t scale may end up with overlapping nodes.
ACTION Robert Shapiro- Need to make recommendation on how to scale on Import. Robert will rework his section on graphical layout and we can the review.
Test process for import what XPDL should look like on screen when imported Test diagram for creation and export
Keith/Nathaniel suggest Checklist/matrix for self compliance? Spot checks to verify that vendors are correctly declaring their tools compliance.
Pat ? who should have access to these tools? WfMC members only?
A suggestion might be - Free for self checks and declaration. Charge for WfMC endorsed conformance. What level of charge should it be? Who would provide the service (remember Doculabs proposal) Defer to SC. Web based tool/wizard. Need to be able to see what generated XPDL looks like in another vendor neutral tool. Description of quality of XPDL
At OGC for every new specification a conformance suite must be provided.
Start with SIMPLE model.
Include reference to/acknowledgement of BPM Japan compliance effort. Pat suggested Vendor ?bake-off? but within closed doors. Each vendor could then decide what to do about own results. Perform in conjunction with OGC. RFP in conjunction with OGC ? interoperability of XPDL 2.1 and see who responds. Sponsorship from large organizations (government agencies etc.)to sponsor and then be able to reimburse participants. In 6 months+ time? Need to devise scenarios that are realizable.
Would need practice event at fall meeting.
Cor suggested sending out RFI to certification organizations to see what responses have.
Way of tackling organization issues might be under the auspices of an XPDL users group. If an external organization performs testing they would have a learning curve and a burden on WfMC committee members. Could one of the vendor?s tools be used as the basis for a web based test tool? Global 360, Fujitsu, TIBCO? Similar to Keith?s XML Formatter ? paste XPDL in and then get graphic of process in return providing it passes the schema and structural test etc.
Robert proposed a motion to perform an XPDL interoperability bake off in conjunction with OGC and seconded by Keith. To be proposed to SC.
Robert demonstrated conformance test using ITP Commerce to produce the process and associated XPDL.
BPAF
Michael presented current state of draft specification. Process state Model. Don't have equivalent to for activity model so idea was to look at WS-HumanTask/BPEL4People activity state model. How would we name the events that are being recorded. Names differ between BPAF and WS-HumanTask/BPEL4People.
For every event show state that transitioning into and ideally the one that was being exited from. Discussion of states required and correspondence between BPAF and WS-HumanTask/BPEL4People? ACTION ? Michael to update BPAF document following discussion on states required.
Interfaces 2 and 4
Keith would like to restart interface 2 initiative with a Web services emphasis.
Need new acronym for interface 2 as it gains more interest than ?Interface 5?.
Two separate work groups for worklist related topics and interoperability
W-XML-R
Keith presented an overview of Wf-XML-R document.
Standards Book
Put together based on transcript from Nashville tutorial. The book is printed on demand and costs $15 and WfMC makes $6 per book. It is proposed that it could be tailored for vendors based on sponsorship.