On branch feature/model-refactoring we have a common model for both models.
The HTML format is on docs.ted.europa.eu[docs.ted.europa.eu]
In the eProcurement Ontology section we have the Working Group meetings. We provide the meeting minutes in two formats: one long text or meeting by meeting.
In the epo-docs section we have two versions of the documentation: dev and 2.0.0.

In the dev version we have the HTML reports based on models existing in various active branches.
We could create a 2.0.1 version and add the HTML report for the feature/frozen-2.0.1 branch.
The epo:Purpose class could be included in the procurement objects.

We will make sure to add diagrams that reflect the model properly.

The Procurement Service Provider Role can act on behalf of the Buyer. Both roles can be played by a Central Purchasing Body.

Central Purchasing Body should be a type of Role and not an Organisation.

epo:actsOnBehalfOf and epo:delegatesAncillaryActivitiesTo relations are now at the Role level, and not at the Organisation level like in the 2.0.1 version.

Based on the definition of the buyer role, the Buyer is a conflation of both Awarder and Acquirer.

By being so specific with the roles, we may add complexity to the model.

Checking the Open Contracting Data Standard: https://standard.open-contracting.org/1.1/en/schema/codelists/#party-role

If we specify just the Central Purchasing Body, it should be enough to cover all data.

Discussion based on the eForms codelists:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/73a78487-cc8b-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1

Discuss the BuyerProfile class. It has only an attribute, epo:hasURL. We could add this attribute in the epo:Buyer class in order to simplify the model. We need to further discuss this issue in order to clarify.