Apologies for the delay in reply. That is what I get for sending updates in comments to the wrong e-mail address and only using WLW to post.

I believe the question you pose is derived from my use of BPM in the context of the platform and the normalization of business models.

One way that can be interpreted is to assume that we have solved the issue of matching business models against business models, by normalizing the interfaces between the two and figuring out context as it relates to “out of band” processes.

One of the most interesting problems in the space of BPM right now dealing with Complex Event Processing. CEP is the process of handling multiple events from an event cloud and being able to identify what is meaningful, using causation, hierarchies and correlation detection algorithms.

Depending on your point of view, IPC is not really doing that (at present). What we’ve done is say “Here’s the protocol to talk with each other.” Thus we’ve provided a streamlined normalization point. In practice this means that we’ve done the CEP work by hand and have come up with a model that represents that work.

The platform, and associated technology is capable of doing async comm, but that the first step along that path is to normalize the protocol. We’ve added facilities to deal with workflow / BPM related issues but only within the domain of the platform’s communication protocol.

In addition, the Platform provides for the ability to do complex definition of compensation and incentive schemes which can support a CEP-like feel (heavily nested scenarios of compensation).

If you would like to discuss further, reach out to me through this comment or the “contact” link above.

Again, apologies for the delay. . .I have resolved the notification issue.

Your scenario seems to be at the edge of CEP and BPM and your mention of governance seems to imply logic that spans more than point decisions. This is another advanced application of rules that you may be anticipating.

Any examples?