Archive for March, 2008

London Calling

It has been a while since I given an update on the work of the WfMC Technical Committee. The last couple of months has been busy, and this is all building toward two standards tutorial events: one in DC and one in London. Before we get to that, it has been a busy couple of months:

XPDL 2.1 - A new update to this specificatio due to the hard work of a number of people contributing and painstakingly edited and assembled by Robert Shapiro. TheWfMC working group 1 met in Nashville and voted for adoption of the 2.1 spec as it is. The new version contains extensions to support BPMN 1.1 (also just released) and include a new section on conformance testing. This is an important step because it allows us to specify several levels of conformance, and a way to measure which level you are at. Bruce Silver contributed significantly to this approach. Tom Laverty from Global 360 developed an XSLT script for performing the test. All in all, it is another step forward in the WfMC effort to allow for a process design ecosystem.

BPAF - A new acronym is born. The Workflow Reference Model describes interface 5 which is a way for events and other historical information to be passed to an analytical tool for processing and mining. At the Nashville meeting a decision was made to call this “Business Process Analytics Format”. This is a standard XML structure which a BPMS can generate, and Process Intelligence product can consume in order to product high quality analytics. Of course many such tools can be programmers to take a stream of event in any format, but a standardized format will allow us to fine tune the precise semantic meaning of each attribute of the event, and make it far easier to hook various types of process engines together without programming. There is a working group led by Michael zur Muehlen and Shane Gabie.

Wf-XML - Main focus on creating a new RESTful version of this specification in cooperation with Open Geospatial Consortium. Find out more about this at GeoBlicki.

Events - there have been a number of successful BPM tutorial events:

  • Las Vegas, Feb 2008, BPM In Practice at Gartner BPM Summit drew a full room of 60+ people for this three hour tutorial by Keith Swenson and Robert Shapiro
  • Nashville, Feb 2008, BPM In Practice at the BPM Tech Show was a repeat success with the three hour tutorial. This one was recorded and is being turned into a book!

Future Events - please mark your calendars, the followin:

The Right Amount of BPMN

After a few months without much BPM discussion, then I blinked and found that I have been missing the Great BPMN Debate. To bring you up to speed: Michael zur Muehlen and Jan Recker have been studying how people actually use BPMN to draw business processes, and have counted the occurrance of rate of various elements. He summarized this in a blog post,which came to the conclusion that practitioners could focus on learning and using a small subset of a dozen BPMN elements, that vendors could prioritize implementations to get the more common elements first, and that some elements were used so rarely that the value of their existence was questioned.

To me this intuitively makes sense if you consider the way that such standards get developed. A group of people get together bringing with them different ideas of how to draw a meaningful diagram. Common ground has to be found between all of the different approaches by taking the specifics of several different approaches and abstracting to a higher level concepts and groupings. Compromises have to be forged in order to include all of the most important parts, and to exclude ideosyncracies of a given approach. The committee aims for a suitable level of completeness. Given that each committee member is coming from a slightly different background and with a slightly different concept of how the various elements might be used, there are clearly differing priorities. Committees will tend to err on the side of including too much because it is easy to argue that a capability is needed, and give an example that requires it, than it is to argue that that example is not common enough to warrant inclusion. It is only natural that the core of a few items will represent the bulk of the usefulness, while there will be some elements that are not useful at all. It is the nature of standards, as it is for high tech products, that the exact way it will be used can not be fully determined until they are actually in use.

Bruce Silver responded with a spirited post raising questions about the method and conclusions. Bruce certainly must be counted among the handful of top BPMN experts that exist today. Bruce has a point: the study was done from existing BPMN diagrams. Who can say for sure that the elements were missing because they were not needed, or because simply the modeler did not understand how to use them? Who can say whether they were missing from the diagrams because the modeling tool vendor did not implement them, or did not implement them correctly. The diagrams themselves may not actually comply to the BPMN syntax. The model might comply to BPMN syntax, but the the modeler might have intended to represent something else. Given the likelihood of these diagram flaws, how can you then conclude that something is not needed simply because it is not used? This is beginning to sound a bit like an argument that designers often use: “They would be useful if the standard had been implemented correctly in line with the original vision of the standard.”

Michael responded with a thorough post which can be brutally reduced to: “Like it or not this is actually how BPMN is used today.” His intent was not to criticize the standard (quite the opposite) but to provide helpful empirical data to guide practitioners, vendors, and even the standards committee to the most important aspects of the standard. Implicit in this is the implication that a subset of the entire standard is acceptable. Bruce responded by admitting that there were superfluous elements of BPMN, but that we should be a bit more careful on how we select the most important set. Tom Bayens weighed in with another well considered perspective. Sandy Kemsley’s summary of this debate is far better than mine, so I will stick to a few comments.

As I have said many times, I consider BPMN to be a dictionary of symbols which can be used to represent concepts. Just as a writer will write a novel without using every word in the English dictionary, so it is suitable to pick and choose a subset of these symbols for use in modeling processes. I have never quite understood those who argue that a modeling tool is useless unless 100% of the specifications are supported (which is arguably not possible given ambiguities and redundancies that exist in such standards.) It goes without saying that your expressibility is limited the more you limit the available symbols. Yet Michael’s main point is that you can say quite a bit with a surprisingly small subset of the BPMN language. I do hope the BPMN group will take to heart as they consider extensions to the existing set, because it is important to step away from the theory of how you would like a standard to be used, and be guided by the more pragmatic knowledge of how it is being used in practice.

That being said, for models to be portable, there must be a broadly agreed upon subset which is sufficiently expressive to handle all the cases you are likely to encounter. If tools choose too narrow a subset, then they will not be able to understand diagrams from another tool with a different subset. Thus Bruce argues quite effectively that the process design ecosystem is best served by encouraging implementation of as much of the specification as possible, well beyond a minimal subset. So I can identify with the concern that a narrow approved subset might encourage vendor to stop short of a useful implementation.

Let me conclude this post with a quick acknowledgment of the tremendous work which Bruce has been doing recently on the XPDL 2.1 specification which has been approved for release by the working group last month. He drove the development of a model portability conformance guideline which he touches on in his most recent post. This ground breaking work will allow us finally to measure the extent to which a tool supports BPMN, and to assure that there is a certain minimum level of consistency, without requiring 100%-or-nothing. Thanks Bruce.

The Right to Royalty-Free Memories

Will you be forced to pay royalties in order to watch your child’s performance on your TV at home? That videotape of your child’s band concert might be illegal, due to overzealous enforcement of copyright laws by the music industry. Motivated by greed, the music industry has simply gone too far.

Consider the case of Mike. He has two kids playing in the high school band: Tom and Nicole. Mike is a typical band booster: he volunteers on the music association board, he helps load and unload all the equipment at events, sometimes he even drives the truck. The kids love the band. They hang out with a group of students who are motivated to cooperate to collectively put on a show. Band students tend to do well in school, and they learn important skills in being able to work with others.

Mike, like most parents, is very proud of his kids’ accomplishments. He wants to capture videotape of every moment of their performance on the field. He wants to show Tom’s and Nicole’s grandparents who live across the country. Never mind the amateur style of photography, there is nothing more delightful than seeing your child or grandchild actually taking part in an successful performance. You and I might not want to watch these recordings, but Mike and his wife would treasure these memories for many years. But Mike is banned from using his video camera at events.

Increasingly, band events are outlawing the use of video cameras to film the kids. The problem: music is being recorded “synchronized” with images of marching - this incurs special synchronization royalties. The organizations that put on such events are truly heroic in giving young student the opportunity to perform, but clearly they are struggling to comply with the legal issues: “Over the past several years, compliance with copyright law has become a matter for close scrutiny by the copyright owners and publishers of copyrighted music. “

That video recording of your child’s birthday party with the kids singing “Happy Birthday”? — you owe royalties for performance, mechanical reproduction, and synchronization. You probably thinking that this is not possible, because these home recordings are “non-commercial” and therefor not subject to payment of royalty. This is a commonly held misunderstanding about copyrights: you don’t have to charge money to be liable for royalty. There is a standard royalty rate for mechanical reproduction (1.75 cents/minute = $1.05/hour) for every copy. You don’t even have to have any public presentations of the video.

You might be thinking: “but they will never catch me.” Cameras are so small now, there is no way such an event could be policed. Which is why event organizers are turning to blanket bans on the equipment. Mike and his wife are made to feel like they are breaking the law just to get a few shots of the kids in a key accomplishment. Mike always complies with the rule; it can still be very uncomfortable sitting next to another parent who is flagrantly taping the entire show. Do you tell them to stop? Why does the event even have to put you into this situation? Why can’t we be allowed to videotape our own kids?

I am a lot like Mike: my kids play in the school band. (But, to be honest, I don’t carry a video camera, see my posts on HDR for my particular obsession.) I went along with the high school band on their final performance at a band competition in East Los Angeles in November of 2007. I was shocked to see signs posted all over the arena saying “No Videotaping Allowed in Respect for the Copyright Owners of the Music”. The reason given for banning all camcorders was that there was no permission for “mechanical reproduction” of the songs being played. The music industry feels the need to prevent the parents from recording their own kids, because this might cut into their profits.

Let me remind the reader: we are talking about high school bands in a marching band competition. This is not going to steal audience from any pop-star concert. The audience consists exclusively of adoring parents, musical teachers, and assistants. Nobody is going to get rich stealing footage from these concerts. Do those music industry executive seriously think that people are going to sell these recordings? Is it going to hurt them in any realistic way? Yet for Mike, this is a serious affront. His kids have been working all season long on this show. They have attended half a dozen competitions, each time getting a little better, a little more in sync, a little more polished. This final concert is the ultimate conclusion of a season’s work. Those kids have never played better, but I can’t actually show you. “No Video Cameras Allowed!”

The law is on the side of the music industry: copyright owners have been given by the government exclusive right to control performance, mechanical reproduction, and synchronization of music. Fifty years ago mechanical reproduction and synchronization was something that only the most accomplished musicians had access to. But today the typical child carries such capabilities in their pocket cell phone and the law is an anachronism which is abused. Such a recording might be considered fair use, but the burden of proof is on the defendant, and the resulting chilling effect is the banning of video cameras at high school band events.

The irony is that Mike is not making a video tape because he wants a copy of the music. The Band might be playing Beethoven; it is not his objective to get a copy of the Beethoven piece. Instead, his objective is to capture the experience of the band performance, the actions of the kids. This experience belongs to the audience. The music is, in some sense, incidental. Like the video of the birthday party: the purpose is to capture the event, and not to steal another recording of “Happy Birthday”. The current law make no distinction as to the purpose of the recording.

A typical high school band will spend thousand of dollars licensing music for the kids to play. This is valuable and legitimate so children can learn to play. But the terms of this license border on the bizarre. Music licensed to high school bands is not automatically licensed for “mechanical reproduction”! What are these people thinking? When you license music to a senior or junior high school band, you can be sure that parents want to videotape their own children.  Getting a mechanical reproduction license requires significant additional trouble of estimating how many minutes of video tape are going to be recorded, and license at a a few cents per minute of recording! Few schools, already strapped for money and volunteers, can afford this or have the manpower to follow up on this. They are forced into the only alternative: ban camcorders at the concerts.

Clearly professional bands performing for a fee owe a portion of what they make to the writers of the music. High school bands are not professional. These are music students, and the performance is essentially a final exam. But don’t let Mom or Dad make a recording of this, because that might be stealing profits from ASCAP or BMI.

The Music industry has simply gone too far, and bans the use of certain songs at events. Reading the band competition site is sad and poignant: “In some cases, the [banned] songs listed above were included because the copyright owner has already advised Bands of America that they are not willing to grant video synchronization rights for marching band videos” Apparently “God Bless America” is not allowed by the owners to to be used in a band concert. Walt Disney will not allow any music from a current release. Don’t even think of playing a James Bond theme. There are many more specific publishing companies that refuse to let school bands play their music, but I don’t want to give them free publicity here. Makes me wonder: what are they afraid of? “They’re protecting an archaic industry,” said the Grateful Dead’s Bob Weir.

The local high school band does not have much money, but still diligently licenses all music. That is why they are concerned when they are told they can not make a “mechanical recording” of their legitimately licensed music. When the company sells music to a school band with 150 students, you have to expect that there will be between 150 and 300 parents in the audience wanting to video tape it. This is just common sense. Allowance for this should be part of the deal.

I have no sympathy for fat-cat music executives who sell music to a high school band, and then turn around and invoke a special clause that prevent parents from videotaping their children in the final concert. How sad it is that the music industry is so money grubbing that it feels that your home videos of little Tom and Nicole are a threat to it. As Americans we should change this anachronistic law. As long as we are not selling the recording for profit, we should fight for the right to record, photo, videotape any public performance by family members, friends, and community members. These recordings capture our experiences to which the music is just a backdrop. Our memories should not be copyrighted.

What can you do? Write your congressman. Promote a law that allows music performed by a student group to be recorded and used for any non-commercial use. Call it the “Freedom to Videotape” law. Or perhaps it should be an amendment to the constitution to give us the “Right to Royalty-Free Memories”.