Working Group meeting 17/01/2023
Date: 17/01/2023
Participants: Jana Ahmad, Natalie Muric, Pietro Palermo, Thomas Pettersson, Giampaolo Sellito, Emidio Stani, Ivan Willer
Model editor: Andreea Pasăre
Note editor: Eugeniu Costetchi
Discussion
-
Org ontology link: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
Core Vocabularies observations
-
epo:hasOrganisationUnit should be an attribute on the OrganisationalUnit concept from org ontology.
-
If we follow org ontology we need to add a new class where to put only an attribute for the name.
-
The reason why we conflated these two is the case when only a particular unit is the Buyer.
-
Recommendation to not separate these two concepts (Organisation and Organisation Unit) and only rename the attribute to epo:hasOrganisationUnitName
-
Why? Because the Agent that takes a role (e.g. Buyer) can be a Unit or an organisation, but we decided to set the description at the “organisation level”.
-
-
epo:hasLegalFormType - from SEMIC perspective we asked the OP to create the Core Vocabulary for the classification of the legal forms from GLEIF:
-
This will be published in the future.
-
Switch to using a code list for legal type classifications.
-
cv:LegalEntity versus epo:Business
Definition for cv:LegalEntity:
A self-empoyed person, company, or organization that has legal rights and obligations.
Definition for epo:Business:
A private law company registered in a national registry.
-
epo:Business should be a subclass of cv:LegalEntity in Core Business Vocabulary.
-
In order to align with Core Voc, it means we need to add cv:LegalEntity and org:FormalOrganization between org:Organization and epo:Business.
-
But a Business has to be a FormalOrganization.
-
In CPOV, a PublicOrganisation is not org:FormalOrganisation, but it is directly under org:Organisation.
-
Depending on the country, a cpov:PublicOrganisation may have a legal entity, so it may be a formal organisation.
-
Hierarchy
-
Org:Organisation
-
cv:PublicOrganisation
-
org:FormalOrganisation
-
legal:LegalEntity (self-employed person, company, or organisation with certain rights)
-
Action: Replace epo:Business by cv:LegalEntity
-
-
-
epo:OrganisationGroup
-
-
-
We need to have a discussion on whether the legal form type is at the legal entity level or at the organisation level.
-
What if we have the case when a tenderer is a public organisation?
-
-
This relationship is used at the Organisation level because foaf:Agent includes also a person or a system.
-
Decided to remove the relation from epo:OfferingParty to epo:Business as depicted in the diagram above.
-
Checking on whether we had a formal organisation in older versions of ePO 2.0.1 and it was not.
-
But in 12th May 2020 WGM minutes it appears to have been created an epo:FormalOrganization concept: https://docs.ted.europa.eu/epo-wgm/notes/2020-05-12-wgm.html
Concession contract
-
In CPSV-AP the cv:ServiceConcessionContract was added as a subclass of epo:ConcessionContract:
-
For CPSV-AP we need a relationship between epo:Contract to epo:ContractSpecificTerm (epo:hasContractTerm) in order to be able to get to the at-voc:contract-nature:
-
Contract includes specific terms
-
Contract cannot have epo:ContractSpecificterms
-
Contract “includes Lot”, is not right, needs more discussion on this.
Order
-
Look into the syntax binding, where we will see all the “elements” that we need to see in the order.
-
For example, Contract ID, is missing, or what is in the Buyer? It is hard to see all the elements from the ePOcore or eCatalogue, or eFulfillment.
-
Request: can we have a plain table with all properties for a class (including inherited attributes).
-
Technical Question:
-
Given a UML model, can we generate an “application profile” in a tabular representation (see SKOS-AP-EU ), for each class considering also inheritance.
-
Can we also automatically generate a “Path” to get that property?
-
-
-
It was found that a epo:ProcurementElement does not have an identifier, so the relation between epo:ProcurementObject and epo:Identifier was moved from epo:ProcurementElement to epo:Identifier as depicted in the diagram below:
-
Proposal to work on a table that contains all the properties for all the concepts in the Order phase on the 26th Jan.
