Radovan elaborates on what he means by “Process State”, using a software product release cycle as an example. I really like this analogy, since it’s easy to relate to it :-)
I believe the essence of what he’s saying is in this paragraph:
Instead, I focused on capturing various communication channels, put them into process (release cycle) context, and let people and applications communicate via a ‘process-aware data broker’. All the ‘message exchange’ is captured and general rules/constrains/policies defined are over them.
I think this deserves a bit more detail for this to really become clear. Based on earlier discussions I think what he’s getting at is that it’s the deliverables that are important, not the detailed steps used to create them. Thus, a process state in his definition — when it’s completed — would actually be (or be composed of) all those deliverables. And these deliverables have to appear in a certain order, have dependencies to each other, are created automatically or manually … Correct?