BPEL is more than a file format — first and foremost, it’s an execution model.

-Ismael

I think people don’t always reply because it goes through moderation first. Maybe that doesn’t discourage everyone, but if they want to get their opinion voiced immediately, they can just post where they want to post I guess.

Regarding the code behind those boxes and arrows, a good implementation of BPMN doesn’t require you to write code to make the process follow arrows or decisions, or receive/send events… Of course, some of those boxes are “user” activities, and if you’re going to involve a user there’s either another system that implements the code for that user (User Interface), or the BPM software provides an Activity implementation approach, which is separate from BPMN and merely interfaces via inputs/outputs with the BPMN process.

I presume in BPEL, the implementation of a user activity would be externalized, right?

By the way, the BPMN vendors say that executable BPMN exists now (ie, that their software is an implementation of BPMN), or else they say they implement BPMN with BPEL (I’m not aware of anyone of size with a third story, but you may have more insight into that than I do). You can argue it isn’t a standard implementation or representation, but it is *an* implementation. I would argue BPEL by itself isn’t an implementation either, its a file format from which a BPEL engine can operate, right?

-Scott

Thanks for the heads up.

I replied as well.

People seem to be afraid to comment publicly. How come?

-Ismael

Sandy replied to this follow up to your post here.

I hope it helps.

Thanks,
 -Antoine