Talk:Business Process Execution Language

message: "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)
thread_title:  Interesting take 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Headache 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bias?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accessibility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Context of BPEL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified