Please find below the minutes of the 21st and 23rd of July.

Participants 21st of July: Paloma Arillo Aranda, Cécile Guasch, Giorgia Lodi, Natalie Muric, Héctor Rico, Helder Santos, Giampaolo Sellitto, Enric Staromiejski.

Participants 23rd of July: Paloma Arillo Aranda, Cécile Guasch, Giorgia Lodi, Natalie Muric, Roberto Reale, Héctor Rico, Helder Santos, Giampaolo Sellitto, Enric Staromiejski.

Topic of Discussion: Pending Actions from the mappings of the current TED forms / Definitions

Both meetings were focused on the discussion of pending action points that arose from the mappings of the current TED forms to the ePO Ontology. The pending actions and the discussions were the following:

  1. SubmissionTerm Deadline to change the definition of the attribute.

    • The class Submission Term was revised and the attributes were made generic to allow the representation of the different Document Types (Tender, Request to Participate, etc)`

    • The definitions of the attributes were changed accordingly.

    • epo:DeadlineRequestToParticipate: DateTime has been removed as it is represented by the epo:ReceiptDeadline DateTime.

  2. To discuss with the WG if the Lot epo:hasContractEstimatedDuration should be ContractEstimatedDuration or ContractDuration.

    • In the mapping of eFoms the attribute hasContractEstimatedDuration Period is only applied to Contract Modification

    • It should be hasEstimatedContractDuration Period for CN and PIN CFC. Other PINs and CAN and Contract modification require further analysis.

    • For the mapping which arose the discussion, F2-2.2.7 Should be Lot hasContractDuration Period

  3. To discuss "How do you account for when a TenderLot has more than one subcontract" (Form 03)

    • It should be done through Statistical Information.

    • By adding TotalSubcontractedValue and the TotalSubcontractedShare to the Class "StatisticalInformation".

    • Also to be checked the mappings in eForms to see whether it was well addressed in the eForms.

  4. Discussion Notice on a Buyer Profile.

    • The WG saw that Notice in a Buyer Profile is a type of PIN.

    • Therefore it should be connected to other PIN or Notices.

    • The WG saw that Document Diagram contains two classes, the first one defining eForms big phases and a second one which contains more granularity “epo:notification-phases-types” (Planning.pin, Competition.pin, etc). However the WG had missed a third more granular level, taking into account the sub-sub-types specified in eForms such as Planning.Pin.BuyerProfile, Planning.PIN.TimeReduction, etc.

  5. Additional Topics:

    • The WG stated the need to check out the relationships between Notice, Document, and Procedure. “notifies” “announces” and “relatesTo” seem to have many domains.

    • "notifies" has three domains: PIN, Document, and Notice. And also three ranges: Procedure, PlannedProcurementPart, and CallForCompetition.

    • The WG proposed to remove "announces" between Document and Procedure, and to add it between Notice and Procedure.