Making your e-business work  


    Reference Model
    Public Documents
    Wf-XML 2.0

About WfMC


Information and

Free downloads

Membership Information

Press Room

Excellence Awards

Marvin L Manheim Award

Workflow Handbook

   2006 NEW!

Associated sites:

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

Workflow and BPM Research

BPM Community Forum

Issue 15
Name/Value Pairs

Resolution: The representation of workflow relevant data (process instance data) should be encoded as such:


Keith Swenson CT0006 This section is dealing with the representation of instance data (workflow relevant data) in XML.

A lot of work is being done on this. I will admit that my first inclination was to make a <name> tag

and a <value> tag. This was vociferously argued against at the IETF meetings. There does seem to

be in the XML community a consistent approach that is different than this. Instead, new tags are

developed that are the “names” of the data, and of course the value is the data between the start

and end tags. This can be done because of the XML namespace mechanism which provides for a

way to make every tag in a document unique even when the different schemas have overlapping

names. Keith Swenson SWAP Update Page 3 of 6 SWAP Update.doc June 12, 1999 Page 3 of 6 I

would recommend that the WfMC stay away from this. The SWAP protocol can specify a tag

which between the start and end tag will appear “instance specific data” using a “standardize

XML encoded data format”. Many groups are doing this. RosettaNet for instance is defining XML

encodings for information industry supply chain integration. The XML/EDI group is doing

important work in defining standard exchange formats. It would be very important not to position

WfMC against these groups, but rather to enhance their basic data orientation with the WfMC

process orientation. There is a lot of milage to be gained by coopting each others standards here.

Then, for the case that the SWAP user does not have an industry consortium defining XML

exchange formats, then we can provide a default format they can build on.

CSC/JCALS RW0007 Agree. Needs to be discussed by WfMC members.

Issue 16

Resolution: If there is not any exception, then the exception tag should simply not be present. There should be no

special value that means that there is no exception.

Keith Swenson CT0008 If there is not any exception, then the exception tag should not be present (not the message ==

Issue 17
Key VS ResourceID

Resolution: The tag <Key> should be used to hold the global unique identifier of the resource. All uses of

<ResourceID> should be changed to use <Key>. The <Key> is a “Session Level Data” set tag.

Keith Swenson CT0010 There seems to be use of <resourceid> and <key>. What is the difference? In order to address

resources, we need to have a well known, persistent, globally unique identifier for it. This is, of

course, an URL (it means Universal Resource Locator). Construction and usage of this URL is

well defined by existing standards. The descriptions of ResourceID and Key seem to be exactly the

same. We should stick to one. Using HTTP, the URL is the address that the request is made to.

Therefor any mention of it in the XML is redundant. The text seems to imply that you might

“search” for the key with PropFind, but if you did not know the key you could not search for it

with this command. The URL is a combination of a machine name, and a path on that machine. In

the case of mail transport, an URL must be composed of the machine email address, and a path on

that machine. Naturally, the email session-protocol must be designed to understand these URLs.

What I am trying to say here is that the addressing of the resource is a connection level thing, that

should not (must not) be included at the level of the XML.

Friday, June 09, 2000 Page 6 of 18
First Previous Next Last
Published Docs
Reference Model
XPDL support

Wf-XML 2.0

Information Services
Info Services
Workflow Handbook

How to join
Country Chapters
List of members


Workflow Handbook 2006

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.

horizontal rule