Working Group meeting

Date: 18/10/2022
Participants: Mauro, Natalie Muric, Emidio Stani
Model editor: Eugeniu Costetchi
Note editor: Andreea Pasăre

Agenda

  • Present and Discuss the Procurement Object

Discussion

  • Proposal to discuss the alignment of Core Business vocabulary with ePO.

Procurement Objects

  • Presenting the proposal that was implemented in a previous WGM (2022-10-04).

  • epo:ReviewObject might need a revision in the future. Decided to leave it as it is for the time being..

  • The award decision is between a tender and a contract so its position is good.

  • Revise definition from epo:ProcurementObject. The proposed definition “The whole or a division of goods, services or works to be procured” is more of a description of the concept and not a definition for it.

  • Answering the question “what are the attributes of the epo:ProcurementObject describing?” might give us a better definition.

  • In the epo:ProcurementObject there is nothing about the subject matter, but only in epo:ProcurementElement.

  • Discussed the case where we have a Direct Award Procedure which is followed by a contract signing.

    • In this case we will also have a Lot for that type of Procedure.

  • The relation epo:hasOverallPurpose between epo:Procedure and epo:Purpose is deleted since it is no longer needed. Instead of this one, we will use epo:hasPurpose between epo:ProcurementObject and epo:Purpose.

H2ejO26K4JZPAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
  • Trying to decide whether a Lot is recurrent or only the procedure can be recurrent. For the moment it was decided to keep the attributes epo:isRecurrent and epo:hasRecurrenceDescription at the epo:ProcurementObject level.

  • Decided to move at-voc:contract-nature at the level of epo:ContractTerm level from epo:Purpose, as in the diagram below:

xtMQa3b0Q5AIQAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
  • In eForms, the title and description of Lot and Procedure were in the Purpose Business Group, BG-2.

  • Also, recurrence and recurrence description are on the Purpose level, but they do not seem to belong there.

  • Should the contract nature be moved back?

    • We should have incremental changes on the model, even if they might impact the standard form mappings.

  • The definitions for epo:Lot, epo:Procedure and epo:PlannedProcurementPart are about different nature of things so they need to be aligned to cover all three aspects:

    • The procedural/process/game rules

    • The object/scope/purpose of procurement

    • The description of influences or additional information related to the procurement (isSMESuitable, isUsingEUFunds etc.)

Discussing github issues 382