Working Group meeting
Date: 26/09/2023
Participants: Pascaline Laure Tchienehom
Model editor: Andreea Pasăre
Note editor: Natalie Muric
Agenda:
-
Presentation of the draft model with regard to CCCEV (core criterion and core evidence vocabulary.
-
Discussion on the Instantiation of General Yearly Turnover to check the viability of the model.
Discussion:
The ESPD Request draft was presented following the comments below.
The ESPDRequest announcesProcurementCriterion is changed to ESPDRequest specifiesProcurementCriterion. "Announces" is for the notices whilst the ESPD Request provides the more detailed information on the ProcurementCriterion
The ESPD Request announcesExclusionGrounds is removed as Exclusion Grounds inherit from ProcurementCriterion and the announces should be replaced by specifies.
It is confirmed that the issuedBy in the CCCEV which is the dct:publisher is not need in the ESPDRequest
The draft at the end of the meeting is:
The CCCEV model is:
The instantiation of General Yearly Turnover was presented to check the viability, using as a source the criterion excel used by the ESPD Request and the example xml:
During the meeting the subcriterion, question group, requirements and requirement group were discussing.
-
The instantiation of the subcriterion seems to be correct at this stage.
-
Concerning the Question Group:
| ** | ** | ** | ** | Name | Description | Value(example) | Cardinality | PropertyDataType | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29 |
{CRITERION |
General yearly turnover |
Its general yearly turnover for the number of financial years required in the relevant notice, the in the ESPD, the relevant notice or the ESPD is as follows: |
||||||
{SUBCRITERION |
[Name of the National Criterion] |
[Description of the National Criterion ] |
0..n |
||||||
{QUESTION_GROUP |
1 |
||||||||
{CAPTION} |
[Additional information; e.g. no evidences online] |
1 |
NONE |
||||||
{QUESTION} |
Your Answer |
1 |
INDICATOR |
||||||
QUESTION_GROUP} |
|||||||||
SUBCRITERION} |
It would appear that the Question group is the cbc:TenderingCriterionProperty.
The Question is not included in the ESPDRequest as it is implicit due to the fact that the ESPDResponse will indicate the answer.
-
Concerning the Legislation foreseen in the ESPD Request:
| ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Name | Description | Value(example) | Cardinality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29 |
{CRITERION |
General yearly turnover |
Its general yearly turnover for the number of financial years required in the relevant notice, the in the ESPD, the relevant notice or the ESPD is as follows: |
||||||
{LEGISLATION} |
0..n |
The cccev foresees a ReferenceFramework which could be reused by the ESPDRequest for Legislation. However the Reference Framework is missing the attributes required by the ESPD Request, one solution would be to create the ePO Legislation as a subclass of the FrameworkReference. Alternatively, we could use the identifier foreseen in ELI as the adms:identifier used between the FrameworkReference and the adms:Identifier for countries that have implemented ELI class, whilst for other countries parts of the ELI ontology could be reused in the ePO. Andreea will look into this further and get back to the working group.
-
Concerning the Requirements in the Requirement Group
| ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Name | Description | Value(example) | Cardinality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29 |
{CRITERION |
General yearly turnover |
Its general yearly turnover for the number of financial years required in the relevant notice, the in the ESPD, the relevant notice or the ESPD is as follows: |
||||||
{REQUIREMENT_GROUP |
1 |
||||||||
{REQUIREMENT} |
Number of fiscal years |
3 |
1 |
||||||
{REQUIREMENT} |
Threshold per year |
CHECK_BOX_TRUE |
1 |
||||||
{REQUIREMENT} |
Minimum requirement |
100000 |
1..n |
The use cases need to be made clear. The minimum requirement has a cardinality of 1..n but it is not clear how this should be used. How are the multiple minimum requirements to be implemented? It would be logical that the requirements would be associated to given years? Is it implicit that the first minimum requirement is year 1 and the second year two and so forth?
It had been understood up until this point that the check box implied that either the minimum requirement applied to the number of fiscal years or to each of the years in the given period.
The requirements of the stakeholders should be checked as to whether the minimument requirement is actually multiple or whether this is an error and whether the initial interpretation was correct as depicted below.
