The main characteristic to be aware of in these tools is that BE is primarily rule-based (using an embedded rule engine), whereas BW and iProcess are orchestration / flow engines. In BE we can use a state diagram to indicate a sequence of states which may define what process / rules apply, but this is really just another way of specifying a particular type of rules (i.e. state transition rules).
The main advantages to specifying behavior as declarative rules are:
Handling complex, event-driven behavior and choreography
Iterative development, rule-by-rule
The main advantages of flow diagrams and BPMN-type models are:
Ease of understanding (especially for simpler process routes)
Process paths are pre-determined and therefore deemed guaranteeable.
In combination these tools provide many of the IT capabilities required in an organization. For example, a business automation task uses BW to consolidate information from multiple existing sources, with human business processes for tasks such as process exceptions managed by iProcess. BE is used to consolidate (complex) events from systems to provide business information, or feed into or drive both BW and iProcess, and also monitors end-to-end system and case performance.
On Event Processing Agents implies a “new” event processing reference architecture with terms like,
(1) simple event processing agents for filtering and routing,
(2) mediated event processing agents for event enrichment, transformation, validation,
(3) complex event processing agents for pattern detection, and
(4) intelligent event processing agents for prediction, decisions.
Frankly, while I generally agree with the concepts, I think the terms in On Event Processing Agents tend to add to the confusion because these concepts in On Event Processing Agents are following, almost exactly, the same reference architecture (and terms) for MSDF, illustrated again below to aid the reader.
JT has posted his view on rules and decisions and how they relate. Given that James talks more about services than events, I thought it would be worth reviewing his post from both a Complex Event Processing and a TIBCO BusinessEvents event processing platform perspective.
”Decision Services:
Support business processes by making the business decisions that allow a process to continue.
Support event processing systems by adding business decisions to event correlation decisions (they are often called Decision Agents in this context).
Allow crucial and high-maintenance parts of legacy enterprise applications to be externalized for reuse and agility.
Can be plugged into a variety of systems using Enterprise Service Bus approaches.”
Folks who have been in event processing fields like network management (NMS) or security management for many years have a very high expectation for processing complex events. Most of the network and security management platforms on the market have basic rule-based processing available “out of the box” and most of these platforms have had the capability to process events in near-real time for decades. Adding a new “rules-based event processing platform” to the network and security management software mix does little to add any additional capability and certainly does not solve any nagging complex detection problems.
- leave anything related to transport, communication to other layers- use this revised CEP to express and execute event-relevant logic, the purpose of which is to translate the ambient events into relevant business events- have these business events trigger business processes (however lightweight you want to make them)- have these business processes invoke decision services implemented through decision management to decide what they should be doing at every step- have the business processes invoke action services to execute the actions decided by the decision services- all the while generating business events or ambient events- etc.
Rule-processing is just a style of computation. Of course it is used in BRMS, but it is also used in CEP. CEP systems typically employ rules-based processing to infer higher-order events by matching patterns across many event streams within the event ‘cloud’. BRMS’s use rule processing to match patterns within data tuples representing business-orientated data. CEP systems may support the use of advanced analytics to manage predictive analysis, reasoning under uncertainty and other requirements in relation to the event cloud. Some of the better BRMS’s offer similar analytics in regard to processing business data.
The “big elephant in the room” in the ongoing CEP dialog is that most of the current (CEP) software on the market is not capable of machine learning and statistical analysis of dynamic real-time situations. Software vendors have been promoting and selling business process automation solutions and calling this approach “CEP” when, in fact, nothing is new. There is certainly no “technology leap” in these systems, as sold today.
Most BREs today are deployed as “decision services”, and are used in “stateless” transactions to make “decisions” as a part of a business process. A CEP application is instead processing multiple event streams and sources over time, which requires a “stateful” rule service optimized for long running. This is an important distinction, as a stateful BRE for long-running processes needs to have failover support - the ability to cache its working memory for application restarting or distribution. And of course long-running processes need to be very particular over issues like memory handling - no memory leaks allowed!
L. Stojanovic, S. Sen, J. Ma, and D. Riemer. Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems, page 385--386. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2012)
Y. Xu, N. Stojanovic, L. Stojanovic, and T. Schuchert. Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems, page 379--380. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2012)
J. Llinas, C. Bowman, G. Rogova, A. Steinberg, and F. White. In P. Svensson and J. Schubert (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION 2004, page 1218--1230. (2004)
W. White, M. Riedewald, J. Gehrke, and A. Demers. PODS '07: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART, page 263--272. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2007)