{"id":792,"date":"2010-11-09T16:08:13","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T16:08:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","slug":"has-success-bpmn-20-killed-bpdm-business-process-definition-metamodel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/modeling-languages.com\/has-success-bpmn-20-killed-bpdm-business-process-definition-metamodel\/","title":{"rendered":"Has the success of BPMN 2.0 killed BPDM (Business Process Definition Metamodel)?"},"content":{"rendered":"

BPDM <\/a> (Business Process Definition Metamodel) was supposed to be a common metamodel for different business process modeling languages (which, for instance, would make BPDM specially useful to exchange busines process models between different tools), including of course BPMN.<\/p>\n

\nTherefore, BPDM was supposed to act as a (abstract) metamodel for BPMN that, at the time <\/a>, was missing one (BPMN primitives were informally illustrated using directly their concrete graphical syntax).
\n<\/P><\/p>\n

\nHowever, since that first BPDM version (2008), two events may have turned BPDM into an irrelevant specification:<\/p>\n