Ontology Construction - Enterprise Information Systems Design, Implementation and Management: Organizational Applications - page 66

Figure 7. The process model of PoAF's mission request

opposed to the Volley case, does not have a tacit
promise. Evaluating the request is done by several
persons, within one cabinet, that produce a rec-
ommendation. The final decision is given to the
Chief of Air Staff. Only then there's a “Promise”
and only if the answer is “yes”.
The subsequent stages include preparing the
mission and its accomplishment and report which,
all together represents the “State” phase of the
Transaction pattern. After the mission is finalized
one can think that the requestor has accepted it and
thus it can be considered as the “Accept” stage.
However, this is not true and the “Accept” stage
should only be considered when the requestor
receives the invoice and pays the mission cost
(for requestors that produce a memorandum of
understanding with the Air Force it is considered
that the mission is already under the terms agreed
which include payment).

Actually, the ontological values are exactly
the same in both cases. Becoming a member and
pay the fist membership fee as opposed to get-
ting the mission and paying its cost can be seen
as the ontological facts of the Volley and Mission
Request Process.
In sequence of what was written before, and
referring to the ontological models application
which is represented in BPMN (see Figure 7) of the
Mission Request Process. As the Mission Request
comes in ( CA01 Mission Request Starts ), the Air
Force Cabinet has to verify that the necessary data
is present. In Dietz transaction model this can be
considered that the mission request ( T/01 Request
is done but it does not have a tacit promise).
Upon element completeness verification, sev-
eral actions have to be made internally in order
to assure if the mission can be accomplished.
A01 square shows all the actions that need to be