The standard table summarizes the results of the comparison of various standards. For a overview of the patterns we refer to the patterns descriptions. For an evaluation of the workflow management systems such as COSA, FLOWer, Domino Workflow, Eastman, Visual Workflow, Forte Conductor, Meteor, Mobile, MQSeries/Workflow, Staffware, Verve Workflow, I-Flow, InConcert, Changengine, and SAP R/3 Workflow in terms of the selected patterns we refer to the products evaluation.

For each standard-pattern combination, we checked whether it is possible to realize the workflow pattern with the language. If a standard directly supports the pattern through one of its constructs, it is rated +. If the pattern is not directly supported, it is rated +/-. Any solution which results in spaghetti diagrams or coding, is considered as giving no direct support and is rated -. Note that a pattern is only supported directly if there is a feature provided by the language  which supports the construct without resorting to any of solutions mentioned in the implementation part of the pattern.

Standard Table