Section 2.3. Standards

2.3. Standards

Table 2-6 lists the major BPM standards and where they fall within our model architecture .

Table 2-6. BPM standards: where they fit

Name	Organization	Type	Chapter
Workflow Reference Model	WfMC	Architectural model	Chapter 7
Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN)	BPMI	Notation language	Chapter 6
UML Activity Diagram	OMG	Notation language	Chapter 3
Business Process Execution Language (BPEL)	OASIS	Execution language	Chapter 5
Business Process Modeling Language (BPML)	BPMI	Execution language	Chapter 6
XML Process Definition Language (XPDL)	WfMC	Execution language	Chapter 7
XLANG	Microsoft	Execution language	Chapter 9
Web Services Flow Language (WSFL)	IBM	Execution language	Chapter 9
Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM)	OMG	Execution language and/or notation language	Chapter 9
Business Process Runtime Interface (BPRI)	OMG	• Administration and monitoring • Human interaction • System interaction	Chapter 9
Workflow API (WAPI)	WfMC	• Administration and monitoring • Human interaction • System interaction	Chapter 7
Business Process Query Language (BPQL)	BPMI	Administration and monitoring	Mentioned in Chapter 7
Web Services Choreography Interface (WSCI)	W3C	Choreography	Chapter 8
Web Services Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL)	W3C	Choreography	Chapter 8
Web Services Conversation Language (WSCL)	W3C	Choreography	Chapter 8
Workflow XML (WfXML)	WfMC	Choreography	Chapter 7
Business Process Schema Specification (BPSS)	OASIS	Choreography (and collaboration)	Chapter 9

At 17 entries, a first glance at the list is intimidating, but the number of viable candidates for our architecture is small:

• Both of the major notation languages, BPMN and UML's activity diagrams, are good, but BPMN is preferred because it is more expressive and defines a BPEL mapping.

• Of the five XML execution languages, BPEL wins by a landslide, because it is the most expressive, has a BPMN mapping, and enjoys the widest industry support.

• None of the three approaches covering administration and monitoring or human and system interaction, is suitable for our architecture. BPQL and BPRI are in infancy and need time to develop; WAPI, by contrast, is past its prime and at best has a few ideas worth harvesting.

• Choreography is used in our architecture to generate skeletal local process models having the correct logic for communication with external participants. WS-CDL is the best of the five choreography standards, and is the recommended approach of the W3C's web services choreography working group.

• The WfMC's workflow reference model in general terms is similar to, and an inspiration for, our architecture, but its details are too closely aligned with the outdated WfMC WAPI, XPDL, and WfXML.

• The OMG's BPDM process metamodel is under development. When it is released, BPDM will standardize the mapping between processes designed in BPMN but run on BPEL. The BPMN design tool will export its processes as BPDM models, and the BPEL runtime engine will import them in that form.

From this analysis, only 3 of the 17 standardsBPMN, BPEL, and WS-CDLcurrently fit into our architecture, but BPQL and BPDM look promising for a future iteration.