Business Process Modeling Language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:34, 7 February 2015

Revision as of 14:12, 15 November 2016

Line 1:

{{Essay-like|date=July 2008}}

'''Business Process Modeling Language''' ('''BPML''') is a language for [[business process modelingXML]]. BPML was a ''proposed''-based language, but now the [[Business Process Management Initiative|BPMI]] has dropped support for this in favor of [[Businessbusiness Processprocess Execution Language|BPEL4WSmodeling]] (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services).{{citation needed|date=February 2012}}

It was maintained by the Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI) until June 2005 when BPMI and and OMG ([[Object Management Group]]) announced the merger of their respective Business Process Management (BPM) activities to form the ''Business Modeling and Integration Domain Task Force'' (BMI DTF).

As of 2008, BPML has also been reported to have been deprecated in favor of BPDM ([[Business Process Definition Metamodel]]).<ref>[http://www.ebpml.org/bpml.htm BPML] at ebPML</ref>

BPMI took this decision when itBPML was acquireduseful byto [[Object Management Group|OMG]] in order to gain access to its popular specification, BPMNenrich ([[Business Process Model and NotationUML]]). This notation was useful to [[Object Management Group|OMG]] in order to enrich UML with process notation.

== History ==

BPML, a superset of BPEL, was implemented by early stage vendors, such as Intalio Inc., but incumbents such as IBM and Microsoft did not implement BPML in their existing workflow and integration engine implementations (BizTalk, Websphere etc.). Hence, they pushed for a simpler language, BPEL. Today, open source implementations of BPML still exceed the capability of these commercial products. This led some to say that BPML versus BPEL was a case of [[VHS]] versus [[Betamax]]. The analogy is not quite correct. For VHS and Betamax both let you watch video - even if one implementation won out. That is not the case with BPML and BPEL. BPML was designed as a formally complete language, able to model any process, and, via a BPMS ([[business process management]] system), deployed as an executable software process without generation of any software code. This is not possible with BPEL, since BPEL is not a complete process language. To illustrate this, note that BPEL is often used in conjunction with Java to fill in the "missing" semantics. In addition, BPEL is often tied to proprietary implementations of workflow or integration broker engines. Whereas, BPML was designed, and implemented, as a pure concurrent and distributed processing engine.

BPML, a superset of BPEL, was implemented by early stage vendors, such as Intalio Inc., but incumbents such as IBM and Microsoft did not implement BPML in their existing workflow and integration engine implementations like ''BizTalk'' or ''Websphere''. They pushed for a simpler language, BPEL.

== Application ==

Ironically, the most complete implementation of BPEL today, is Intalio's open BPMS, which also completes the semantics by fulfilling the spirit of the BPML specification. Maybe in future BPML will be seen in other BPEL implementations. The only difference in the future will be syntax, not semantics. In this sense, BPML cannot be avoided, since it was designed to be semantically complete according to the [[Pi-calculus]] formal representation of computational processes.

BPML, a superset of BPEL, was implemented by early stage vendors, such as Intalio Inc., but incumbents such as IBM and Microsoft did not implement BPML in their existing workflow and integration engine implementations (BizTalk, Websphere etc.). Hence, they pushed for a simpler language, BPEL. Today, open source implementations of BPML still exceed the capability of these commercial products. This led some to say that BPML versus BPEL was a case of [[VHS]] versus [[Betamax]]. The analogy is not quite correct. For VHS and Betamax both let you watch video - even if one implementation won out. That is not the case with BPML and BPEL. BPML was designed as a formally complete language, able to model any process, and, via a BPMS ([[business process management]] system), deployed as an executable software process without generation of any software code. This is not possible with BPEL, since BPEL is not a complete process language. To illustrate this, noteIn thatpractice BPEL is often used in conjunction with Java to fill in the "missing" semantics. In addition, BPEL is often tied to proprietary implementations of workflow or integration broker engines. Whereas, BPML was designed, and implemented, as a pure concurrent and distributed processing engine.

It was designed to be semantically complete according to the [[Pi-calculus]] formal representation of computational processes.

The battle between BPML and BPEL is widely viewed as an example of the power of IBM and Microsoft over early stage startups to complete a core technology stack at the heart of their business model.

BPEL and BPML are examples of a trend towards [[process-oriented programming]]. BPEL and BPML herald the concept of a BPMS as an IT capability for management of business processes, playing a role similar to a [[Relational database management system|RDBMS]] for business data.