Yes and no. So it's the same in a sense that I define a format for these workflows. This means that the workflow authoring tool is completly independant of the scheduler/execution engine, as long as both are compliant to the standard. BPMN tries to do a lot more, and I think it's overkill for most use-cases.

The major difference is OpenWorkflow defines tasks very loosely: you specify the environment you seek, and what to do on it. You can incorporate it into your current set of jobs without much friction.

I don't think BPMN is a good comparison, as companies who seek this are mostly huge and have slowly changing processes. This is more for cases when the world around you might be everchanging, incorporating APIs, shuffling files around or moving data for analytics/model training.