The following people volunteered their time to attend the meeting and through this participation helped further the goals of the WfMC. The WfMC extends thanks and gratitude.
Mike Amend, BEA
Philippe Betschart, W4 (World Wide Web Workflow)
Justin Brunt, TIBCO
Carl Hillier, Fujitsu Computer Systems
Kwang-Hoon Kim, Kyonggi University
Ken Mei, Global 360
Yonah Hirschman, Pearson
Michael zur Muehlen, Stevens Institute of Technology
Nathaniel Palmer, WfMC
Bob Puccinelli, DST Systems
Yoshihisa Sadakane, NEC Soft Ltd.
Rober Shapiro, Global 360
Keith Swenson, Fujitsu Computer Systems
Tomasz Wrzosek, Projekty Bankowe POLSOFT
Technical Committee Result Summary
Working Group 1: XPDL
Led by Robert Shapiro of Global 360.
Conformance to XPDL 2.0: How can implementers of XPDL show that they implement the spec correctly? How can WfMC assure that when a vendor claims they support the spec, that the implementation is correct? Criteria for XPDL 2.0 Conformance are required to answer these questions. Michael zur Muehlen put together a set of slides outlining conformance as being in three categories: exporters of XPDL, parsers of XPDL, enactment of XPDL processes. We need separate criteria on these three categories. Each category needs a conformance criteria list. Implementors will self-evaluate (for now) and indicate whether they do or do not implement a certain aspect of XPDL. How do we create this list of criteria? Suggestion was made that a starting point would be to make a list of tags that exist in XPDL. Such a list was drawn up, and each tag was discussed whether it was the main topic of a criterium. In cases were multiple tags were logically connected a single criterium is made for the group of tags. This set the direction for work that can continue outside of the meeting.
XPDL 2.1 Extensions: The list of XPDL extensions proposed to date can be found at XPDL 2.1 Proposals. Discussion took place on: how to specify the URL that indicates it is a Remote Subprocess Node that can call a remote subprocess; how to express the Coordinate Units for the graphical information; how to express Test Values on subprocess parameters so that an engine can simulate the calling of a subprocess without calling it; how to indicate that a particular data field is important for analytics use; how to specify an icon for a custom node type; how to specify that certain data fields are read only. Initial proposal for these extensions are linked.
Notes
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 Meeting, Feb 6 through 8, 2007
Schedule & Locations
Monday, February 5, 2007
WfMC Seminar: BPM in Practice\\ 8:00am to 5:00pm\\ Biltmore Hotel & Suites\\ 2151 Laurelwood Road\\ Santa Clara, CA 95054\\ 408-988-8411\\
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
WfMC Member Meeting\\ Fujitsu TRIOLE Integration Center\\ 09:00 -12:00 Technical Committee Meeting\\ 1:00 -17:00 Joint WfMC/OMG BPMI TC Meeting\\ 19:00 - 22:00 Traditional Dinner Outing (Location TBD)\\
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
WfMC Member Meeting\\ Fujitsu TRIOLE Integration Center\\ 09:00 -16:00 Technical Committee Meeting (con?t)\\ 09:00 -16:00 External Relations Committee\\ 16:00 -17:00 Joint TC / ERC Meeting\\
Thursday, February 8, 2007
WfMC Member Meeting\\ Fujitsu TRIOLE Integration Center\\ 09:00 -12:00 Steering Committee Meeting\\
Attendees
The following people volunteered their time to attend the meeting and through this participation helped further the goals of the WfMC. The WfMC extends thanks and gratitude.
Technical Committee Result Summary
Working Group 1: XPDL
Led by Robert Shapiro of Global 360.
Conformance to XPDL 2.0: How can implementers of XPDL show that they implement the spec correctly? How can WfMC assure that when a vendor claims they support the spec, that the implementation is correct? Criteria for XPDL 2.0 Conformance are required to answer these questions. Michael zur Muehlen put together a set of slides outlining conformance as being in three categories: exporters of XPDL, parsers of XPDL, enactment of XPDL processes. We need separate criteria on these three categories. Each category needs a conformance criteria list. Implementors will self-evaluate (for now) and indicate whether they do or do not implement a certain aspect of XPDL. How do we create this list of criteria? Suggestion was made that a starting point would be to make a list of tags that exist in XPDL. Such a list was drawn up, and each tag was discussed whether it was the main topic of a criterium. In cases were multiple tags were logically connected a single criterium is made for the group of tags. This set the direction for work that can continue outside of the meeting.
XPDL 2.1 Extensions: The list of XPDL extensions proposed to date can be found at XPDL 2.1 Proposals. Discussion took place on: how to specify the URL that indicates it is a Remote Subprocess Node that can call a remote subprocess; how to express the Coordinate Units for the graphical information; how to express Test Values on subprocess parameters so that an engine can simulate the calling of a subprocess without calling it; how to indicate that a particular data field is important for analytics use; how to specify an icon for a custom node type; how to specify that certain data fields are read only. Initial proposal for these extensions are linked.
Notes