anonymous wrote : | The mismatch in naming of workflow elements is nearly as bad as it can get... | I totally agree with this. This was the reason for looking at BPMN in the first place. We wanted to get to "proven concepts" with "established terminology". And to be honest, following the discussions around BPMN and executable dialects, I still don't see arguments why it can't be done. Please show me examples of BPMN elements that conflict with execution. IMO it's not necessary to have full BPMN support. We just need those parts that we actually can make executable. If I remember correctly BPMN even defines profiles with different scopes. But I think a 60% BPMN support is still better 100% jPDL, which is, by the way, something we cannot even easily compare at the moment, because jBPM doesn't use common BPM patterns and established terminology to express it's features/capabilities. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166725#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...