Thanks to all of you who contacted OMG in support of the BPMN 2.0 conformance classes proposal. Yesterday I received a copy of the following note sent out to Finalization Task Force members:Supporters of the conformance sub-types proposal:

"Following the request of Bruce Silver (http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2010/03/29/bpmn-tool-interoperability-make-your-voice-heard/#comments) I want to notify that Saperion (and Signavio, see CC addresses) want to support the interchange of BPMN 2.0 models from other vendords to Saperion Workflow. We ar currently working on a Transformation Service which will allow to import models designed by Signavio Process Editor first. But this should work for other vendors as well. Signavio want to be able to import models from other vendros as well. This is the our preferred way to handle other models as well." -- Dr. Martin Bartonitz, Saperion AG "I would very much appreciate it you could convey my support for tool interoperability to be included in the final BPMN 2.0 specification. As an advocate of BPMN I have long felt that the implementation of tool interoperability would remove one of the few issues that practitioners have with the adoption of BPMN." -- Simon Parkinson, EFG Consulting Ltd "Raytheon (a global defense and electronic company) to support the Conformance Class proposal. We have been evaluating products from SAP, Oracle, and others to support Business Process Modeling and integration into SOA foundations, and we need to see a mechanism in place that enables an evolution for levels of BPMN compliance with a rich set of integration possibilities among other tools within our enterprise. I am the BPM Champion within my company and can talk to where we have business needs in this space over the next couple years." -- J Bryan Lail, Raytheon "BPMN2.0 tool interoperability is essential for long term adoption, the situation should be the same we have in the browser world. A few days ago another big software manufacturer (http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx) failed honoring standards. Supporting the BPMN2.0 Process Modeling Conformance Class proposal would be redundant in important benefits for costumers and manufacturers, improving a common core instead of developing independent and proprietary technologies. Corba fails just for similar reasons, if WEB technologies have had such success is because they focus in interoperability offering test for browsers and tools." --Antonio Lpez-Cern Vivo, Innovacin Tecnolgica, DUNA "We have a long standing interest in Workflow language standardization and execution, so we are watching closely the BPMN effort. We strongly support Bruce Silver's "BPMN2.0 Process Modeling Conformance Class" proposal, since we think it may well serve the industry need for a language able to describe, model and execute business processes in a vendor-indipendent way. We kindly ask you to express this support in the BPMN 2.0 standardization process and to forward our support to the voting members of the process." -- Michele Mauro, Visionest "We as a member of a big applied research organisation in Germany are much interested in BPMN 2.0 and a practical specification of conformace classes to make exchange of models between different tools work. As Bruce Silver and Robert Shapiro worked out, the defined conformance classes in the latest BPMN 2.0 version are not detailled enough; a refinement on attribute level is absolutely nesseccary. I herewith support the proposal of Robert Shapiro (http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/wp-content/Conformance-DESCRIPTIVE_ANALYTIC_EXECUTABLE-proposal-for-B%E2%80%A6.pdf) and I ask you herewith to forward my message to all of the FTF voting members." -- Norbert Weienberg, Fraunhofer-Institut fr Software- und Systemtechnik ISST

I will keep you posted as to the status of the proposal.Thanks to all of you who contacted OMG in support of the BPMN 2.0 conformance classes proposal. This week I received a copy of the following note sent out to Finalization Task Force members...