Ontology Construction - Enterprise Information Systems Design, Implementation and Management: Organizational Applications - page 69

control over everything - Volley - and on several
actors that perform different tasks that end up with
a recommendation for a decision - the Mission
Request.
The “Request” stage is equal for both (but dif-
ferent on the tacit acceptance) but the “Promise”
stage differs significantly in terms of what has
to be done and the path that has to be followed.
On the other hand, there are some explicit dif-
ferences on the “State” stage. On the Volley case
after the validation phase is complete the clerk
can promise the requestor that he is going to be
a member. On the Mission Request, although the
Air Force promises to perform the mission, there
could be third party reasons either for not doing
it at all or to deviate from the initial plan. In this
case, the requestor has to informally accept the
fact the he has to “Accept” the mission even if it
does match the request.
Using Dietz's Transaction Pattern proved to be
very useful in analyzing and identifying process
activities using the “Request”, “Promise”, “State”
and “Accept “stages as it allows to verify consis-
tency between activities and identify items that
need to be changed in order to provide a clearer
understanding of the actions performed by the
process actors.
On the representation part, a BPMN diagram
was used to draw both the “Process” and the “State”
models (provided that the BPMN data elements are
used including the one that can represent infologic
aspects). The diagram, after annotation, can also
represent the Transaction Pattern. Naturally there
are advantages and disadvantages in using one
notation to represent the complexity of a process
or using five diagrams to represent a pattern and
four models, as proposed by Dietz.
The way how BMPN could be used to fully
represent Dietz models can be further brought to
a level of more detail as people thinks about it
involving more work and new ways if representing.
Dietz's universal Transaction Pattern applica-
bility to every situation, even the more complex
ones, which involve multiple decision levels and

multiple actors, is brought to a reasonable doubt.
Further debate methodology on this issue should
identify complex cases and study thoroughly the
Transaction Pattern applicability.
On both subjects, BPMN usage to replace
Dietz's “Process” and “State” diagrams and the
universal application of the Transaction Pattern,
this paper intent is to unveil the world of possibili-
ties making a small initial contribution.

references

Alberts, L. K. (1993). YMIR: An Ontology for
Engineering Design . PhD thesis, University of
Twente.

Auramaki, E., Lehtinen, E., & Lyytinen,
K. (1988, April). A speech-act-based office
modeling approach. ACM Transactions on
Office Information Systems , 6 (2), 126-152.
doi:10.1145/45941.214328

Benjamins, R., & Gomez Perez, A. (1999).
Overview of Knowledge, Sharing and Reuse
Components: Ontologies and Problem-Solving
Methods. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 work-
shop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods
( KRR5 ), Stockholm, Sweden (pp. 1-15).

Borst, W. N. (1997). Construction of Engineering
Ontologies . Enshede, The Netherlands: Centre for
Telematica and Information Technology, Univer-
sity of Twente.

Dietz, J. L. G. (2006). Enterprise Ontology:
Theory and Methodology . Delft, The Netherlands:
Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-33149-2

Fernandez, M., Gomez-Perez, A., & Juristo, N.
(1997 March). Methontology: from Ontological
Art towards Ontological Engineering. In Proceed-
ings of the AAAI97 Spring Symposium Series on
Ontological Engineering , Stanford, USA (pp.
33-40).