Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

      Loosely Coupled Thinking

      SOA, BPM, Clouds &
      other trendy stuff...

News

  • Better Search:

    Tweets


      Reading

      About

      Not me but an incredibly realistic simulation.
      John Evdemon
      is an Architect
      at Microsoft.

      <legal-stuff>
      The views and opinions stated in this blog are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Microsoft.
      Each posting on this blog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
      </legal-stuff>


      Social

      View John Evdemon's profile on LinkedIn

      John Evdemon's Facebook profile





      Locations of visitors to this page

    If you can do something it doesn't mean that you should...

    I'm not really doing anything BPEL related these days but a post by Jesper Joergensen caught my eye.    Since I'm not focused on BPEL I haven't kept up with some of the developments in the BPM-related blogosphere.    Apparently Bruce wrote a post illustrating some of the fundamental differences between BPMN and BPEL.    BPMN is much more expressive so representing a BPMN process as BPEL is not necessarily an easy task.  Jesper makes a point in his post that should not be taken lightly:

    BPEL is not suitable for business process modeling because it's too restrictive and machine oriented.

    BPEL was never intended for process modeling - it's an orchestration language, not a process modeling language.   Using an orchestration language for process modeling is like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.  

    Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 1:39 PM by jevdemon
    New Comments to this post are disabled
    Page view tracker