Talk:Business Process Execution Language

Updates on 2/19
Added more information that might not get included in the final BPEL spec. I thought this information was important in understanding BPEL so I added it to the wiki. I also added some statements to help clarify the concept of Abstract processes and the relationship to executable processes.

I was doing research for BPEL engines and I came one called BizZyme. Has anyone heard of this? www.creativescience.com

WS-BPEL
Since the name of the standard has changed, shouldn't this page be at least cross-referenced with WS-BPEL? Clicking the WS-BPEL link on the page redirects to the same page.

Borland Together
Borland Together 2006 also provides eclipse plugin for GUI business model design and BPEL generation --The plugin has been added, this section can be removed.

Interesting take
"As numerous "small" programming languages already existed (e.g., C, C#, and Java), computer scientists felt no need to introduce another."

Huh? C, C# and Java are themselves recent developments, not to mention Ruby, Python, Perl, Clean, etc. etc., all of which were either introduced in the last 10 years or so, or have at least seen dramatic uptake. Further, Java 1.5 is a significantly different beast from Java 1.4, which itself is different from 1.3, etc. It seems unlikely that any of these will be seen as the last word.

I'm going to change this to say that while there are many "programming in the small" languages, there weren't many for "programming in the large". While I'm at it, I'll change "realization" to "notion" in the previous text. Given that "large" languages are at present much less widely deployed than "small" ones, it remains to be seen whether new languages are required (but that depends in part on what you call a "language" as opposed to, say, a "data model".) -Dmh 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam ?
Why is the page tagged as spam ? I only see legitimate links in the External links section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.88.57.15 (talk • contribs).


 * Agreed. I'm doing research on BPEL and workflow engines at the moment, and every one of those external links seems to be to unbiased, useful information.  I removed the tag.  Someone's likely to sue me over that. ;) --Kintar 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The tag was added before the list of BPEL "engines" was split into its own article. With that spam magnent gone, there really wasn't a need for the spam tag, so I'll hire you a lawyer if anyone sues you... :)  There's still probably more links than is needed - this isn't supposed to be a link directory per WP:EL - but I am unqualified to determine which links are more helpful than the others. None of them seem to be spam, though.  Thanks for zapping the tag.  Kuru  talk  22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there still a concern about spam on the front page? We can list all of the links here and review them for content and purpose - but I'm not in favor of having a huge maintenance tag at the top of the article.  I'd prefer the stardard inline "please don't add links without discussing them on the talk page first", but adding the spam tag at the top is a little excessive - the article is just not going to be that big of a target without the "engines" list.  Kuru  talk  14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is as far as I can tell currently no spam, but the tag as I understand it is more more about the likelyhood of the article being spammed. It's a maintenance tag warning editors and users to watch out that this particular article is routinely spammed. To quote WP:SPAM:
 * Tagging articles prone to spam
 * Some articles, especially those pertaining to Internet topics, are prone to aggressive spamming from multiple websites. Please tag them with Cleanup-spam to advise the Wikipedia community to watch the article for abuse.
 * But there is also the sentence It's a good idea to remove this tag once the attacks die down. so I'd say let's wait and see for the moment, even though there was only recently a link added again. --S.K. 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Headache
From the text:

"A choreography model provides a scope specifically focusing on the view of one participant (e.g. a peer to peer model). Instead, a orchestration model encompasses all parties and their associated interactions giving a global view of the system"

From a rather reliable source (http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/03-05%20WP%20WS-CDL%20Barros%20et%20al.pdf):

"A choreography captures interactions from a global perspective, meaning that all participating services are treated equally."

Reading some more one sees that the descriptions are not totally contradicting, but obviously there are differences... highlunder 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias?
From the first few paragraphs:

"However, BPEL omits certain semantics and process constructs. Therefore it is not possible, in BPEL, to model and execute any business process" [...] "In most practical cases, therefore, the lack of completeness and formality of BPEL means that processes designed with it need to be extended or compiled to code, similar to traditional programming. This denudes BPEL of many of the advantages purported for it by vendors." [...] "BPEL was developed, by IBM and Microsoft, to compete with an earlier language, BPML, developed by BPMI.org (Business Process Management Initiative). The reasons are debated, but the likely cause was personalities in the various camps who could not reach agreement on details. Unlike BPEL whose roots were in workflow theory, BPML was inspired by the Pi Calculus. This afforded, to BPML, a complete and formalized semantic. Powerful implementations were emerging in the marketplace, and this worried IBM and Microsoft who needed control of the standards governing the development of their application servers."

All a bit strong without a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not upto wikipedia standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.211.117 (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure I read it once before and it made sense but now it doesn't really. Can we lose the politics please? 88.97.17.237 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not just critique on the basis that it is impossible for humans to read and write without heavy tooling, and that a workflow-centric world view is not always appropriate. SteveLoughran (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone please add pronunciation of the acronym? I'm guessing it's either B-pel or B-P-E-L or both, but that's just a guess. Thanks  --Privman (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In a course that I took, the professor pronounced it B-Pel, but that's not citable. ThomasOwens (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility
This article is inaccessible to someone from outside the field - having read the introduction I still have no idea as to what BPEL is. Oracle's simple description at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/bpel/overview/index.html is far better: "BPEL is the standard for assembling a set of discrete services into an end-to-end process flow, radically reducing the cost and complexity of process integration initiatives." Af3556 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Context of BPEL
The opening paragraphs of the article read like an advertisement -- I had to read deep into the history section to find out whether the page had just been created by the company that was pushing BPEL.

A section right in the opening paragraph that contextualizes the language would be helpful. Unfortunately I don't know enough about it to write it, but something like "BPEL arose out of a pair of efforts, one by IBM and one by XXX, that blah blah. It was formalized as a standard in 20xx, and is currently under development by XXX and YYY." -- Metahacker (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples?
Some kind of example would serious help this article. If this is a language we should be able to put some words/syntax/grammar in here. Wavell2003 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was quite surprised to find no examples here. Riordanmr (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What is it?
The lead or body needs to give some context. I suspect it might be computer software? Or is a natural language that some people speak in a certain area? Or some coded language used to hide some other kind of communication? etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a computer readable markup language that describes IT processes within a business. It's readable by experts, but not intended to be human readable. Although it can be automatically expanded with fairly simple tools to keep integrated process description and documentation.
 * There's still not much automatic processing of BPEL, less so than WSDL, although they're broadly similar. It's not a "programming language", it's certainly not an imperative or procedural programming language. It might be considered a declarative programming language, but even that is a bit thin and not there yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Business Process Execution Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915055453/http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/Mapping_BPMN_to_BPEL_Example.pdf to http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/Mapping_BPMN_to_BPEL_Example.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050516010854/http://ftpna2.bea.com:80/pub/downloads/ws-bpelj.pdf to http://ftpna2.bea.com/pub/downloads/ws-bpelj.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)