I am implying that MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY is achievable is we externalise business rules from the business process. This not only makes the process flexible to the changes in the rules but also allows the rules to be reused in different process, IMO.
I think that majority of Rules Engines keep rules separatly from the content where the rules are used. At least, ILOG does this. Whether you access the Rules Engine via a service is another thing and it depends on the Rules Engine implementation. I would like to read your 'next paper', Hitoshi-san, if you do not mind... - Michael ________________________________ From: Hitoshi Ozawa <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 10:19:01 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne again on SOA's Mortality Are you implying that everything should be an externalized service or rules? Is the "real" in real flexibility imply RWE? Just wondering but is there a rules engine or business process engine capable of partial rules reuse or partial process reuse or it is just that they should be made into a service to be reusable? <-topic of my next paper :-) H.Ozawa 2009/5/30 Michael Poulin <m3pou...@yahoo. com>: > > > If business people care about flexibility when they organise a process, BPMN > tools are only tools. Real flexibility comes from: > 1) externalsing business decision logic to 'a rules engine' for the process > steps > 2) externalising realisation of the process actions to the services > 3) loose-coupling the process with the action-services via requested > business functionality (vs. explicit binding with the service interfaces) > > [So, what has left from the 'process' if everything is externalised? Do we > need a BPMN tool or service composition tool? ("Do we really, really have to > deal with BPMN and 'processes'? " > http://www.ebizq. net/blogs/ service_oriented /2009/04/ do_we_really_ > really_have_ to_deal_with_ bpm_and_processe s.php)] > > - Michael >
