{"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). \nHowever, since that first BPDM version (2008), two events may have turned BPDM into an irrelevant specification:<\/p>\n \nIf there is only one popular notation for business process modeling notation and this notation comes already with a metamodel, do we really need to have a more abstract metamodel (BPDM)? To exchange BPMN with what?\n<\/p>\n \nI think the huge success of BPMN has made BPDM completely irrelevant and I don’t think we will see a SECOND BPDM version anytime soon. I could be completely wrong (who knows maybe the OMG IS working ON BPDM 2.0 RIGHT now \ud83d\ude42 ) but the fact that the BPMN 2.0 specification does NOT mention a single TIME BPDM IS highly suspicious…\n<\/p>\n \nDo you have a different opinion? Do you still think BPDM IS relevant? Do you know what the OMG plans TO do WITH it?<\/p>\n
\n<\/P><\/p>\n\n