100% agree, but at least this will commoditise the current space and help us all move on to the real challenge (which is as you say the actual human to human piece). The more we commoditise these older areas the more chance there is to move on to the next thing. Historically we've had real issues in going over the same ground over and over again rather than moving on to the next problem set.
One question around HIM though is whether its mindset is still individuals with individuals, which is hard enough, or dynamic ad-hoc groups which is much harder. It would be nice to move on to the first stage of that, but I've still not seen anything that really helps with the later (except for a really good PA). Steve On 27/06/07, Keith Harrison-Broninski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to clarify. When the BPEL folk say "human interactions" they mean between interactions between humans and systems (H2S). This is what BPEL4People sets out to deal with. This is a separate matter from interactions between humans and humans (H2H), the domain of Human Interaction Management<http://human-interaction-management.info>(HIM). Such work is collaborative, innovative, and adaptive - and cannot be supported with a language such as BPEL, no matter how it is extended. All mainstream BPM languages, including graphical notations like BPMN, are based on carrying out steps in a pre-defined sequence, which is not how humans work together. -- All the best Keith http://keith.harrison-broninski.info Gervas Douglas wrote: A group of technology vendors that includes Active Endpoints, Adobe, BEA Systems, IBM, Oracle and SAP, has published business process execution language for people, or BPEL4People, as a set of specifications to define human interactions in business processes.
