"alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : BPMN is a vendor specification. It addresses BPM requirements from the perspective of those vendors who wrote it, not necessarily from the perspective of users. Even if significant research has gone into it, that does not mean it addresses the needs of the jBPM community. | | There are many elements in BPMN 1.1 that have neither been implemented nor requested in jPDL. Examples include the message flow, lanes within pools, and several event triggers and gateway types. Plus, BPMN defines the model semantics but does not address the execution. It is like having the Java Language Spec without the JVM Spec. Some vendors, e.g. Intalio, use BPEL as the execution spec. However, BPEL addresses orchestration, not workflow, and does not really fill the bill. | | I see no advantage in centering our execution design on BPMN: it imposes extraneous requirements and shreds no light on our particular challenges. I believe we should center it on our experiences with jBPM 3, and take BPMN compatibility as a secondary criterion. great concrete explanation of my high level fluffy talk :-) +1 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4164952#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...