Making your e-business work  

Home

Standards
    Conformance
    Reference Model
    Public Documents
    XPDL_2.0
    Wf-XML 2.0



About WfMC

Events

Information and
Publications


Free downloads

Membership Information

Press Room

Excellence Awards

Marvin L Manheim Award

Workflow Handbook
   2001
   2002
   2003

   2004
   2005
   2006 NEW!


Associated sites:
AIIM
WARIA

e-workflow.org

Got a question?
Join our Discussion Forums
 Discussion Forum for Workgroups (WfMC-specific)

Workflow and BPM Research

BPM Community Forum
 


Jim Hayes CT0058 In my opinion, our Wf_XML should layout type definitions for size. This is similar to the

standard emulation contract used on top of TCP/IP for interoperability of size of integers, etc,

between disparate operating systems.



As far as IF1 is concerned, at the Atlanta conference there was talk about revising and even

re-writing the IF1 spec to be XML based. I agreed with this suggestion. The impact is that

WPDL is a new a different language which in itself is not

a "base standard" like XML.

David Hollingsworth CT0059 I generally agree with Effat's observations and suggestions. Oliver's comments are quite

correct and I did note when looking at the introduction of XML as an alternative encoding

scheme for the meta-model several months ago that we would have to address the issue of data

type definitions.



One of the advantages of going down an XML route is that we can simply adopt the

established data types, etc.There is then an outstanding question about the existing data type

declarations and coercions in WPDL; ideally these should be made compatible with XML

equivalents but this will need review by WG1. Strictly speaking, individual

implementations may map as they wish between the WPDL types on interface 1 (for process

definition interchange with BPR tools etc) and the XML defined datatypes used for process

interoperability on i/f 4 but this is not a very satisfactory position and we should regularise.

I'll try to give some more thought to this next week.

Issue 10
Wf-XML relationship with other WfMC Specifications

Rainer Weber CT0035 It seems that the Request and Response XML data could be schematically extracted from an

Abstract Spec. Of course, in our case we do not stick to the IF4 Abstract Spec (different

operations, different operation names). The XML specific things could be handled generically

and be described on just one place. (The same could have been true for the MIME binding.

There, however, some more mail protocol specific design decision were necessary to ensure

reliablity in that request-response-game.)

Proposal: None, just a remark.

David Hollingsworth CT0076 I like Mike Marin's suggested approach and also Marc-Thomas's suggestion to introduce a

formalised method such as UML (on which I am a novice, personally). The other key thing is

to get a common basis between Jointflow & Wf-XML, which this should help. I will look out

how far I got with the original draft to separate out chapter 3 of the current spec into a

separate document (some of this rework actually found its way into the current version

anyway). If we do go down a UML route this will definitely need a lot more work but it could

be dovetailed in as a detailed section following the introductory part. One area that does

need more work is specifying the context and granularity of process definition exchange,

which brings in the question of the model structure and other common elements. I'll attempt to

get out a few ideas in the next couple of weeks (unless someone else can beat me to it...)

Edna Murby CT0085 general--all--(Discussion) What is the best way to ensure consistency with the jointFlow

specification Proposed Modification: For discussion. Agreement on a small subset of the

jointFlow specification, with the focus on items within the jointFlow which will not be

affected by the revision process, may provide consistency. Rational: Discussion

Edna Murby CT0086 2.2.4--Page 9--Process Status: This may be incompatible with --Proposed Modification:

Cross reference with the jointFlow Ratioal: To do

Issue 21
Worklist, WorkItem, EntryPoint, and

Friday, June 09, 2000 Page 2 of 8
First Previous Next Last
Standards
Published Docs
Standards
Reference Model
Conformance
XPDL support

Wf-XML 2.0
 

Information Services
Info Services
Awards
Books
Workflow Handbook

Membership
How to join
Application
Country Chapters
List of members
Officers
Fellows


NEW!

Workflow Handbook 2006
NOW SHIPPING!



CDROM Companion to the Workflow Handbook 2005

 

horizontal rule

home | membership | standards | info | events | members only

All brand names and product names mentioned in this website are trademarks or service marks of their respective companies. Any omission or misuse should not be regarded as intent to infringe on the property of others. The WfMC recognizes and respects all marks used by companies, manufacturers and developers as a means to distinguish their products. The “WfMC” logo and “Workflow Management Coalition” are service marks of the Workflow Management Coalition. http://www.wfmc.org.

horizontal rule