<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Saba&#039;s</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sabarish.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sabarish.com</link>
	<description>Saba&#039;s ramblings on anything and everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:03:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The State of BPM: Perspectives of an Industry Insider By Kevin Spurway by Sabarish</title>
		<link>http://www.sabarish.com/the-state-of-bpm-perspectives-of-an-industry-insider-by-kevin-spurway-13.html/comment-page-1#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Sabarish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabarish.com/?p=13#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Lombardi provides free personal account on Blueprint: http://www.lombardisoftware.com/lombardi-blueprint-accounts.php. However, it is pretty limited in what you can do with it. (&lt; wink&gt; ‘ineffectual toy’ said someone&lt;/wink&gt;)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Thanks for correcting me on the standards: it’s not the pretty pictures, but the way the process flows are saved - the serialization that needs to be standardized</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lombardi provides free personal account on Blueprint: <a href="http://www.lombardisoftware.com/lombardi-blueprint-accounts.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.lombardisoftware.com/lombardi-blueprint-accounts.php</a>. However, it is pretty limited in what you can do with it. (&lt; wink&gt; ‘ineffectual toy’ said someone&lt;/wink&gt;)</p>
<p>Thanks for correcting me on the standards: it’s not the pretty pictures, but the way the process flows are saved &#8211; the serialization that needs to be standardized</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The State of BPM: Perspectives of an Industry Insider By Kevin Spurway by Sandy Kemsley</title>
		<link>http://www.sabarish.com/the-state-of-bpm-perspectives-of-an-industry-insider-by-kevin-spurway-13.html/comment-page-1#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandy Kemsley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabarish.com/?p=13#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Lombardi doesn&#039;t have a free modeller, although they do have a fairly low-cost software-as-a-service discovery/modelling tool called Blueprint. TIBCO has a free downloadable modeller in addition to Savvion.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;There are reasons for using a modelling tool instead of Visio with a BPMN stencil. First of all, a modelling tool enforces BPMN rather than just enabling it. It also (typically) provides additional functionality such as simulation, and the ability to define more of the model in terms of web services parameters to be called from a step or participant roles. The modellers also provide a way to import the model directly into the BPM execution environment, although in the case of Savvion and TIBCO, you can only import to their own BPMS. There is a Visio add-on from Zynium that does provide an XPDL export for import into a wider range of BPMS, but that&#039;s a more complex (and more expensive) add-on than a simple stencil.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I agree with Kevin that there needs to be a vendor-independent community for exchanging process patterns (&lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.column2.com/2006/06/savvions-processxchange/&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I suggested that a walled garden approach was going to work&lt;/a&gt; at the time that Savvion launched their ProcessXchange), but it&#039;s not BPMN that will be critical, it&#039;s either XPDL or BPDM -- these are the serialization standards in which you save the process models that you model in BPMN, whereas BPMN is just the graphical representation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lombardi doesn&#8217;t have a free modeller, although they do have a fairly low-cost software-as-a-service discovery/modelling tool called Blueprint. TIBCO has a free downloadable modeller in addition to Savvion.</p>
<p>There are reasons for using a modelling tool instead of Visio with a BPMN stencil. First of all, a modelling tool enforces BPMN rather than just enabling it. It also (typically) provides additional functionality such as simulation, and the ability to define more of the model in terms of web services parameters to be called from a step or participant roles. The modellers also provide a way to import the model directly into the BPM execution environment, although in the case of Savvion and TIBCO, you can only import to their own BPMS. There is a Visio add-on from Zynium that does provide an XPDL export for import into a wider range of BPMS, but that&#8217;s a more complex (and more expensive) add-on than a simple stencil.</p>
<p>I agree with Kevin that there needs to be a vendor-independent community for exchanging process patterns (<a HREF="http://www.column2.com/2006/06/savvions-processxchange/" REL="nofollow">I suggested that a walled garden approach was going to work</a> at the time that Savvion launched their ProcessXchange), but it&#8217;s not BPMN that will be critical, it&#8217;s either XPDL or BPDM &#8212; these are the serialization standards in which you save the process models that you model in BPMN, whereas BPMN is just the graphical representation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

